Efficacy of High and Low Intensity Percutaneous Electrolysis for the Treatment of Myofascial Pain Syndrome

NCT ID: NCT04390438

Last Updated: 2020-05-15

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

15 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2020-02-17

Study Completion Date

2020-04-27

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Muscle pain is frequently attributed to myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) in which myofascial trigger points (MTrP) are a characteristic feature. Dry needling is a frequent clinical practice to manage MPS but few evidence is published about percutaneous electrolysis effects for the treatment of MPS.

This is a randomized clinical trial with 3 parallel groups: 1) High intensity-short time percutaneous electrolysis; 2) Low intensity-long time percutaneous electrolysis; 3) dry needling control group.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

The current study aimed to evaluate changes in rectus femurs active trigger points and patellar tendon pain pressure thresholds and subjective anterior knee pain perception after application of two percutaneous electrolysis methods using a same charge (high intensity and low intensity) compared to a dry needling group in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS)

Fifteen patients diagnosed with unilateral PFPS were divided in two experimental groups (high intensity percutaneous electrolysis and low intensity percutaneous electrolysis) and one active control group (dry needling. The duration of the study was 7 days with only one intervention. Pain pressure thresholds were assessed using an algometer before the intervention, immediately after the intervention and after 7 days and a Visual Analogue Scale was used before the treatment and after 7 days to rate the subjective anterior knee pain perception. Also a VAS was used to rate the pain perception during the intervention

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Knee Pain Chronic Muscle Pain

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Randomized Clinical trial with 3 parallel groups; 2 experimental groups and 1 control group
Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

TRIPLE

Participants Investigators Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

High-Intensity short time percutaneous electrolysis

Application of a 0,66uA galvanic current in the active TrP through a needle during 10 seconds. During the 20 seconds left necessary to blind the patient and the examiner, the needle was inside but with no electrical current

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Percutaneous Electrolysis

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Needle emplacement with a galvanic electrical current

Low-Intensity long time percutaneous electrolysis

Application of a 0,22uA galvanic current in the active TrP through a needle during 30 seconds

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Percutaneous Electrolysis

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Needle emplacement with a galvanic electrical current

Dry needling

One acupuncture needle was placed in the active TrP to produce a local twitch response during 30 seconds

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Dry needling

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Needle emplacement without electrical current nor substance

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Percutaneous Electrolysis

Needle emplacement with a galvanic electrical current

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Dry needling

Needle emplacement without electrical current nor substance

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Athletes with knee pain
* Presence of at least one active Trigger point

Exclusion Criteria

* Farmacologic treatment
* Surgery or traumas
* Skin alterations or infections
* Prior 6 weeks DN nor PT treatment
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

45 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Universidad Francisco de Vitoria

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Juan Antonio Valera-Calero, PT, Msc

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Camilo Jose Cela University

Alberto Sanchez-Mayoral-Martín, PT

Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR

Free professional practice

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Camilo Jose Cela University

Villanueva de la Cañada, Madrid, Spain

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Spain

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

50997093

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.