Analysis, use, and application of ultrasound-guided percutaneous electrolysis: a cross-sectional study

You have full access to this open access article

Downloads

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the clinical application of percutaneous electrolysis (PE) among physiotherapists, evaluating its frequency of use, adverse effects, application criteria, technical parameters, and perceived effectiveness.

Materials and Methods: Descriptive cross-sectional study through an anonymous online survey aimed at physiotherapists trained in PE. Demographic data, clinical practice information, and safety data were collected using closed and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics were used with frequency analysis and measures of central tendency.

Results: Forty-nine physiotherapists participated, with a mean age of 32.9 ± 8.4 years. 69.4% had more than 60 hours of PE training, and 95.8% used ultrasound guidance. The most frequent adverse effects were pain during application (45.8%) and minor bruising (10.2%). 36.7% of the physiotherapists interviewed reported having caused a vasovagal syncope on some occasion. 87.5% applied intensities of 1–3 mA, with durations of 1–3 seconds. 91.7% combined PE with other invasive techniques or therapeutic exercise. The majority considered PE to be more effective than other non-invasive treatments for pain reduction, functional improvement, and structural changes.

Discussion: In clinical practice, a high level of homogeneity in the application criteria is observed, although the sample is influenced by the training methodology and the low representation of the initially calculated sample. Emphasis is placed on the need to establish more standardized protocols.

Conclusions: PE is perceived as safe and effective in the studied sample and is commonly used in combination with other therapies, both invasive and non-invasive. The results support its use and safety, although larger studies are required, as the lack of a representative sample limits the extrapolation of the results shown.

References

Valera-Garrido F, Minaya-Muñoz F, Medina-Mirapeix F. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle electrolysis in chronic lateral epicondylitis: Short-term and long-term results. Acupunct Med [Internet]. 2014 Dec 1 [cited 2025 Jun 17];32(6):446–54. doi:10.1136/acupmed-2014-010619 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/acupmed-2014-010619

Fakontis C, Iakovidis P, Lytras D, Kasimis K, Koutras G, Ntinou SR, et al. Efficacy of percutaneous needle electrolysis versus dry needling in musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil [Internet]. 2023 Aug 31 [cited 2025 Jun 17];36(5):1033–46. doi:10.3233/BMR-220408 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-220408

Margalef R, Valera-Garrido F, Minaya-Muñoz F, Bosque M, Ortiz N, Santafe MM. Percutaneous Needle Electrolysis Reverses Neurographic Signs of Nerve Entrapment by Induced Fibrosis in Mice. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2025 Jun 17];2020:6615563. doi:10.1155/2020/6615563 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6615563

Mattiussi G, Moreno C. Treatment of proximal hamstring tendinopathy-related sciatic nerve entrapment: presentation of an ultrasound-guided “Intratissue Percutaneous Electrolysis” application. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J [Internet].2016 Apr 1 [cited 2025 Jun 17];6(2):248. doi: 10.11138/mltj/2016.6.2.248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11138/mltj/2016.6.2.248

Peñin-Franch A, García-Vidal JA, Martínez CM, Escolar-Reina P, Martínez-Ojeda RM, Gómez AI, et al. Galvanic current activates the NLRP3 inflammasome to promote Type I collagen production in tendon. Elife [Internet].2022 Feb 1 [cited 2025 Jun 17];11:e73675. doi:10.7554/eLife.73675 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.73675

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Diego Aznar de la Cueva, Laura A. de la Cueva

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.