The purpose of this double-blinded randomized controlled trial was to investigate whether percutaneous electrolysis (PE) is able to activate endogenous pain modulation and whether its effects are dependent on the dosage of the galvanic current. A total of 54 asymptomatic subjects aged 18–40 years were randomized into three groups, receiving a single ultrasound-guided PE intervention that consisted of a needle insertion on the lateral epicondyle tendon: sham (without electrical current), low-intensity (0.3 mA, 90 s), and high-intensity (three pulses of 3 mA, 3 s). Widespread pressure pain thresholds (PPT), conditioned pain modulation (CPM), and temporal summation (TS) were assessed in the elbow, shoulder, and leg before and immediately after the intervention. Both high and low intensity PE protocols produced an increase in PPT in the shoulder compared to sham (p = 0.031 and p = 0.027). The sham group presented a significant decrease in the CPM (p = 0.006), and this finding was prevented in PE groups (p = 0.043 and p = 0.025). In addition, high-intensity PE decreased TS respect to sham in the elbow (p = 0.047) and both PE groups reduced TS in the leg (p = 0.036 and p = 0.020) without significant differences compared to sham (p = 0.512). Consequently, a single PE intervention modulated pain processing in local and widespread areas, implying an endogenous pain modulation. The pain processing effect was independent of the dosage administrated.

(1) Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a safe intervention, only producing mild and transient adverse effects (AEs). However, there is no detailed analysis of the pattern of adverse effects in an application transferable to the clinic. Therefore, our objective is to describe the AEs produced by tDCS and its temporal evolution. (2) Methods: A total of 33 young volunteers were randomized into a tDCS or sham group. Participants performed a hand dexterity task while receiving the tDCS or sham intervention (20 min and 1 mA), for five consecutive days. AEs were assessed daily after each intervention and classified as somatosensory, pain, or other effects. (3) Results: The number of AEs was generally increased by tDCS intervention. Specifically, tDCS led to more frequent somatosensory discomfort, characterized by sensations like itching and tingling, alongside painful sensations such as burning, compared to the sham intervention. Additionally, certain adverse events, including neck and arm pain, as well as dizziness and blurry vision, were exclusive to the tDCS group. Interestingly, tDCS produced similar AEs across the days; meanwhile, the somatosensory AEs in the sham group showed a trend to decrease. (4) Conclusions: tDCS produces mild and temporary somatosensory and pain AEs during and across sessions. The different evolution of the AEs between the tDCS and sham protocol could unmask the blinding protocol most used in tDCS studies. Potential solutions for improving blinding protocols for future studies are discussed.

Percutaneous electrolysis consists of the application of a galvanic electrical current throughout an acupuncture needle. It has been previously hypothesized that needling procedures’ neurophysiological effects may be related to endogenous pain modulation (EPM). This protocol study describes the design of a double-blind (participant, assessor) randomized controlled trial with the aim to investigate whether percutaneous electrolysis is able to enhance EPM and whether the effect is different between two applications depending on the dosage of the galvanic electrical current. Seventy-two asymptomatic subjects not reporting the presence of pain symptoms the previous 6 months before the study, aged 18–40 years, are randomized into one of four groups: a control group who does not receive any intervention, a needling group who receives a needling intervention without electrical current, a low-intensity percutaneous electrolysis group (0.3 mA × 90 s), and a high-intensity percutaneous electrolysis group (three bouts of 3 mA × 3 s). Needling intervention consists of ultrasound-guided insertion of the needle on the common extensor tendon of the lateral epicondyle. The primary outcome is conditioned pain modulation (CPM), and secondary outcomes include widespread pressure pain sensitivity (pressure pain thresholds (PPT) over the lateral epicondyle, the cervical spine, and the tibialis anterior muscle) and temporal summation (TS). We expected that percutaneous electrolysis would have a greater influence on CPM than an isolated needling procedure and no intervention. In addition, we also postulated that there might be differences in outcome measures depending on the intensity of the electrical current during the percutaneous electrolysis application. This study makes a new contribution to the field of neurophysiological effects of percutaneous electrolysis and needling interventions.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been investigated as a way of improving motor learning. Our purpose was to explore the reversal bilateral tDCS effects on manual dexterity training, during five days, with the retention component measured after 5 days to determine whether somatosensory effects were produced. In this randomized, triple-blind clinical trial, 28 healthy subjects (14 women) were recruited and randomized into tDCS and placebo groups, although only 23 participants (13 women) finished the complete protocol. Participants received the real or placebo treatment during five consecutive days, while performing a motor dexterity training program of 20 min. The motor dexterity and the sensitivity of the hand were assessed pre- and post-day 1, post 5 days of training, and 5 days after training concluded. Training improved motor dexterity, but tDCS only produced a tendency to improve retention. The intervention did not produce changes in the somatosensory variables assessed. Thus, reversal bi-tDCS had no effects during motor learning on healthy subjects, but it could favor the retention of the motor skills acquired. These results do not support the cooperative inter-hemispheric model.