Efficacy of different intensities of percutaneous electrolysis for musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Juan Luis Sánchez-González; Víctor Navarro-López; Pablo Cañada-Sánchez; Raúl Juárez-Vela; Regina Ruiz de Viñaspre-Hernández; Sergio Varela-Rodríguez

doi:10.3389/fmed.2023.1101447

Efficacy of different intensities of percutaneous electrolysis for musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Front Med (Lausanne). 2023 Feb 2:10:1101447. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1101447. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Juan Luis Sánchez-González¹, Víctor Navarro-López^{2

3}, Pablo Cañada-Sánchez⁴, Raúl Juárez-Vela⁵, Regina Ruiz de Viñaspre-Hernández⁵, Sergio Varela-Rodríguez¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
² Faculty of Health Sciences, International Doctoral School, Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid, Spain.
³ Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid, Spain.
⁴ Faculty of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
⁵ Faculty of Health Science, University of La Rioja, Logroño, Spain.

Abstract

Objective: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to determine the effect of ultrasound-guided percutaneous electrolysis (PE) alone or as an adjunct to other interventions on pain intensity generated by musculoskeletal disorders, depending on the intensity of the technique.

Data sources: PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Health Medical Collection, and CINALH from inception to September 2022 were searched to identify documents.

Study selection: Publications investigating the effect of ultrasound-guided PE in musculoskeletal pain.

Data extraction: Data were extracted into predesigned data extraction and tables. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (Rob 2.0). Thirteen articles met inclusion criteria.

Data analysis: Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to quantify the difference in pain between the PE and control groups.

Data synthesis: A significant reduction in pain was found in favor of low- (-1.89; 95% CI: -2.69; -1.10; p < 0.001) and high-intensity PE (-0.74; 95% CI: -1.36; -0.11; p: 0.02) compared to control group. Low-intensity PE showed significant reduction in pain in the short (-1.73; 95% CI: -3.13; -0.34; p < 0.02) and long term (-2.10; 95% CI: -2.93; -1.28; p = 0.005), with large effect sizes compared to control group. High-intensity PE only showed significant lower pain than control group in the long term (-0.92; 95% CI: -1.78; -0.07; p < 0.03), with a small effect size, but not in the short term.

Conclusion: We found small evidence suggesting that low-intensity PE could be more effective for musculoskeletal pain reduction than high-intensity PE. Nevertheless, scientific evidence on this subject is still scarce and studies comparing the two modalities are warranted.

Systematic review registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42022366935.

Keywords: meta-analysis; musculoskeletal pain; percutaneous electrolysis; physiotherapy; systematic review.

Publication types

Systematic Review