Girasol Carlos Eduardo, Durán Nathaly Escobar, D'Almeida Santiago Marcelo, Ronzio Oscar Ariel
Postdoctoral Researcher, and Clinical Physiotherapist, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto (SP), Brazil.
Researcher, and Clinical Physiotherapist, Cuauhtémoc Plantel Aguascalientes University, Mérida, Mexico.
Sao Paulo Med J. 2025 Aug 11;143(5):e2024164. doi: 10.1590/1516-3180.2024.0164.R1.07032025. eCollection 2025.
Percutaneous microelectrolysis (MEP) is a minimally invasive technique used for pain relief, inflammation control, and tissue repair. However, the optimal treatment protocol remains under debate.
To compare the effects of dry needling and MEP, with and without a treatment algorithm, on pain in individuals with active myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) in the upper trapezius muscle. Design and setting: Randomized controlled trial conducted at Maimónides University, Buenos Aires.
Eighty-eight participants with MTrPs in the upper trapezius muscle were enrolled. The presence of MTrPs was confirmed through physical examination and algometric measurement before intervention. Participants were randomly assigned to one of six groups: Sham, dynamic dry needling, static dry needling, dynamic MEP, static MEP, or algorithmic MEP. Active treatments were administered using 0.30 mm × 40 mm acupuncture needles. Pain was assessed using two tools: the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT). Both measures were recorded with participants at rest before the intervention and again at 10 min, 24 h, 48 h, and 7 days post-intervention.
Significant post-intervention differences in NPRS scores were observed in all groups except dynamic dry needling when compared to Sham. The algorithmic MEP group achieved complete pain relief by day 7. In terms of PPT, the threshold values in the MEP groups were lower than those in the other groups.
All needling techniques demonstrated analgesic effects on myofascial trigger points, with the algorithm-enhanced MEP showing the most notable improvement in self-reported pain. However, MEP was not superior to other methods in improving pressure pain thresholds.
NCT05478928.
经皮微电解（MEP）是一种用于缓解疼痛、控制炎症和组织修复的微创技术。然而，最佳治疗方案仍存在争议。
比较干针疗法和MEP在有无治疗算法的情况下，对斜方肌上部有活动性肌筋膜触发点（MTrP）的个体疼痛的影响。设计与地点：在布宜诺斯艾利斯的迈蒙尼德大学进行的随机对照试验。
招募了88名斜方肌上部有MTrP的参与者。在干预前通过体格检查和痛觉测量仪测量确认MTrP的存在。参与者被随机分配到六个组之一：假治疗组、动态干针组、静态干针组、动态MEP组、静态MEP组或算法MEP组。使用0.30 mm×40 mm的针灸针进行主动治疗。使用两种工具评估疼痛：数字疼痛评分量表（NPRS）和压力疼痛阈值（PPT）。在干预前参与者休息时记录这两种测量值，并在干预后10分钟、24小时、48小时和7天再次记录。
与假治疗组相比，除动态干针组外，所有组干预后的NPRS评分均有显著差异。算法MEP组在第7天实现了完全疼痛缓解。在PPT方面，MEP组的阈值低于其他组。
所有针刺技术对肌筋膜触发点均显示出镇痛作用，算法增强的MEP在自我报告的疼痛方面显示出最显著的改善。然而，MEP在改善压力疼痛阈值方面并不优于其他方法。
NCT05478928。
