Randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of the ultrasound-guided galvanic electrolysis technique (USGET) versus conventional electro-physiotherapeutic treatment on patellar tendinopathy

F Abat; J L Sánchez-Sánchez; A M Martín-Nogueras; J I Calvo-Arenillas; J Yajeya; R Méndez-Sánchez; J C Monllau; P E Gelber

doi:10.1186/s40634-016-0070-4

Randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of the ultrasound-guided galvanic electrolysis technique (USGET) versus conventional electro-physiotherapeutic treatment on patellar tendinopathy

J Exp Orthop. 2016 Dec;3(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s40634-016-0070-4. Epub 2016 Nov 16.

Authors

F Abat¹, J L Sánchez-Sánchez², A M Martín-Nogueras², J I Calvo-Arenillas², J Yajeya³, R Méndez-Sánchez², J C Monllau^{4

5}, P E Gelber^{4

6}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, ReSport Clinic, Rambla Fabra i Puig 47, 08030, Barcelona, Spain. abat@resportclinic.com.
² Department of Physiotherapy, University of Salamanca, Campus Miguel de Unamuno, 37007, Salamanca, Spain.
³ Department of Physiology, University of Salamanca, Campus Miguel de Unamuno, 37007, Salamanca, Spain.
⁴ Catalan Institut of Traumatology and Sports Medicine (ICATME), Hospital Universitari Dexeus, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Sabino Arana 5-19, 08028, Barcelona, Spain.
⁵ Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Parc de Salut Mar, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Passeig Marítim, 25-29, 08003, Barcelona, Spain.
⁶ Department of Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Sant Quintí 89, 08041, Barcelona, Spain.

Abstract

Background: Patellar tendinopathy has a high prevalence rate among athletes. Different therapeutic options can be found in the current literature, but none of them has been clearly established as the gold standard. The purpose of this study is to compare, in a randomized controlled trial, the clinical efficacy of eccentric exercise combined with either an ultrasound-guided galvanic electrolysis technique (USGET) or conventional electrophysiotherapy to treat patellar tendinopathy.

Methods: Sixty patients diagnosed with patellar tendinopathy were randomized into two groups. Group 1 (n = 30) received electrophysiotherapy treatment consisting of ultrasound, laser and interferential current techniques. Group 2 (n = 30) received USGET. Both groups did the same standardized eccentric exercise program. Periodic assessments of the subjects were carried out with the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Patella (VISA-P) score. An analysis of means and a survival study were performed.

Results: There were statistically significant differences in the VISA-P between the baseline and final follow-up in each treatment group. Group 1 (conventional electrophysiotherapy) went from 52.5 ± 18.8 to 61.9 ± 13.7 (in VISA-P < 90 subgroup) and from 69.1 ± 9.1 to 95.2 ± 2.5 (in VISA-P > 90 subgroup). Group 2 (USGET) went from 51.4 ± 17.9 to 63.3 ± 14.3 (in VISA-P < 90 subgroup) and from 66.3 ± 13.1 to 97.1 ± 1.7 (in VISA-P > 90 subgroup). There were statistically significant correlations between the baseline and final score in the VISA-P > 90 subjects upon completing the study but no statistically significant correlations between subjects with VISA-P < 90. The mean number of sessions applied was 22.6 ± 2.5 in Group 1 and 3.2 ± 0.9 in Group 2. The success probability in Group 1 was 36.1% versus 72.4% in Group 2. The difference was statistically significant.

Conclusion: The results obtained with the combination of USGET and eccentric exercise reported better outcomes than with the conventional electrophysiotherapy techniques in the treatment of patellar tendinopathy.

Keywords: Electrolysis; Electrophysiotherapy; Galvanic; Patellar; Tendinopathy; Treatment; USGET.