Short-term effectiveness of high- and low-intensity percutaneous electrolysis in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome: A pilot study

Table 2 Pain pressure thresholds

Variable	Time of measurement	HIPE	LIPE	DN	Mean difference	ANOVA interaction effect	Bonferroni post-hoc analysis
MTrP (kg/cm2)	Pre	4.20 ± 0.57	4.10 ± 0.54	3.80 ± 0.67	0.10 (-0.95-1.15)1; 0.40 (-0.65-1.45)2; 0.30 (-0.75-1.35)1	F = 0.65; P = 0.562; η2 = 0.09	Group	NA
	Post	3.50 ± 0.61	3.60 ± 0.41	4.00 ± 0.35	0.10 (-0.73-0.93)1; 0.50 (-0.33-1.33)2; 0.40 (-0.43-1.23)3	F = 1.55; P = 0.251; η2 = 0.20	Time
	7 d follow-up	5.00 ± 1.00	5.00 ± 0.50	4.50 ± 0.70	0.00 (-1.34-1.34)1; 0.50 (-0.84-1.84)2; 0.50 (-0.84-1.84)3	F = 0.71; P = 0.509; η2 = 0.10		Follow up > post, P < 0.0014,5
Patellar tendon (kg/cm2)	Pre	5.20 ± 0.83	5.30 ± 0.27	5.20 ± 0.83	0.10 (-1.13-1.33)1; 0.00 (-1.23-1.23)2; 0.10 (-1.13-1.33)3	F = 0.03; P = 0.967; η2 = 0.00	Group	NA
	Post	4.90 ± 1.19	4.70 ± 0.44	5.00 ± 0.79	0.20 (-1.32-1.72)1; 0.10 (-1.42-1.62)2; 0.30 (-1.22-1.82)3	F = 0.15; P = 0.858; η2 = 0.02	Time	Follow-up > pre, P < 0.0014,5,6
	7 d follow-up	9.10 ± 0.82	9.50 ± 0.35	9.00 ± 0.86	0.40 (-1.66-0.86)1; 0.10 (-1.16-1.36)2; 0.50 (-0.76-1.76)3	F = 0.67; P = 0.526; η2 = 0.10		Follow-up > post, P < 0.0014,5,6

¹High-intensity percutaneous electrolysis (HIPE) vs low-intensity percutaneous electrolysis (LIPE).

²HIPE vs dry needling (DN).

³LIPE vs DN.

⁴Simple within-group effects in the HIPE group.

⁵Simple within-group effects in the LIPE group.

⁶Simple within-group effects in the DN group.

MTrP: Myofascial trigger point; HIPE: High-intensity percutaneous electrolysis; LIPE: Low-intensity percutaneous electrolysis; DN: Dry needling; ANOVA: One-way analysis of variance.