TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical use of percutaneous needle electrolysis in musculoskeletal injuries
T2 - A critical and systematic review of the literature
AU - Martínez-Silván, Daniel
AU - Santomé-Martínez, Francisco
AU - Champón-Chekroun, Angélica María
AU - Velázquez-Saornil, Jorge
AU - Gómez-Merino, Sergio
AU - Cos-Morera, Miquel Angel
AU - Morral-Fernández, Antoni
AU - Mascaró-Vilella, Alfons
AU - Ricis-Guerra, Manuel
AU - García-Bol, Fernando
AU - Posada-Franco, Víctor
AU - Sebastiá, Vicente
AU - Cano-Herrera, Carlos
AU - Ramírez-Parenteau, Christophe
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 FUTBOL CLUB BARCELONA and CONSELL CATALÀ DE L'ESPORT
PY - 2022/10/22
Y1 - 2022/10/22
N2 - Objective: To review the current scientific evidence for the clinical use of percutaneous needle electrolysis (PNE) in musculoskeletal conditions. Methods: A systematic electronic search was performed in biomedical databases. Only clinical studies on human subjects using PNE on musculoskeletal pathologies were included. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). Treatment protocols were described, and primary outcomes (pain, injury-related function, and tissue structure) were compared against other treatment modalities or control groups in short (<1 month), mid (1-3 months) and long term (>3 months). Results: Twenty-one studies met eligibility criteria (14 comparative studies and 7 case series). Sixty-two percent were at moderate to high risk of bias. PNE was applied in a wide range of injury types (mostly tendon-related), and application protocols were heterogeneous in terms of dosage (intensity: 0.35-6mA; time: 9-90sec), frequency (from twice a week to once every 2 weeks) and treatment duration (1-10 weeks). PNE showed moderate effects on pain at short and mid-term compared to active exercise interventions alone and sham needling. There is limited evidence that PNE improves injury-related function compared to other treatment modalities and no evidence of tissue structure improvement after PNE application. Conclusion: There is paucity of high-quality clinical studies about PNE in musculoskeletal conditions and lack of consensus about treatment indications and application protocols. Although a moderate effect on pain at short and mid-term has been documented, further research is needed.
AB - Objective: To review the current scientific evidence for the clinical use of percutaneous needle electrolysis (PNE) in musculoskeletal conditions. Methods: A systematic electronic search was performed in biomedical databases. Only clinical studies on human subjects using PNE on musculoskeletal pathologies were included. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). Treatment protocols were described, and primary outcomes (pain, injury-related function, and tissue structure) were compared against other treatment modalities or control groups in short (<1 month), mid (1-3 months) and long term (>3 months). Results: Twenty-one studies met eligibility criteria (14 comparative studies and 7 case series). Sixty-two percent were at moderate to high risk of bias. PNE was applied in a wide range of injury types (mostly tendon-related), and application protocols were heterogeneous in terms of dosage (intensity: 0.35-6mA; time: 9-90sec), frequency (from twice a week to once every 2 weeks) and treatment duration (1-10 weeks). PNE showed moderate effects on pain at short and mid-term compared to active exercise interventions alone and sham needling. There is limited evidence that PNE improves injury-related function compared to other treatment modalities and no evidence of tissue structure improvement after PNE application. Conclusion: There is paucity of high-quality clinical studies about PNE in musculoskeletal conditions and lack of consensus about treatment indications and application protocols. Although a moderate effect on pain at short and mid-term has been documented, further research is needed.
KW - Musculoskeletal injuries
KW - Percutaneous electrolysis
KW - Review
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85140363174
UR - https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000884393700001
U2 - 10.1016/j.apunsm.2022.100396
DO - 10.1016/j.apunsm.2022.100396
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85140363174
SN - 2666-5069
VL - 57
JO - Apunts. Sports medicine
JF - Apunts. Sports medicine
IS - 216
M1 - 100396
ER -