Product has been added to your cart.

An introductory interview with Dr. Marco Di Gesù

Intervista con il Dott. Marco Di Gesù

UltraSound-Guided Percutaneous Electrolysis Technique (also known as USGET) is a relatively young procedure in Italy.

Dr. Marco di Gesù, ANFI – Associazione Nazionale Fisiatria Interventistica – associate tells us about his experience using Physio Invasiva 2.0, the device specifically developed by Easytech to perform USGET.

When did you first start adopting Physio Invasiva 2.0?

I started adopting Easytech device Physio Invasiva 2.0 a few months ago, but have been performing USGET since 2017.

What has directed you towards this particular procedure?

USGET provided me with solid results as for the treatment of some tendinopathies that were not responsive to other types of treatment. In particular, it was the success I was able to achieve in a case of chronic epicondylitis that led me to perform USGET.

For what types of pathologies or patients would you most recommend USGET?

Indeed, its use is most suited for chronic tendon pathologies compatible with an ultrasound picture describing cases of tendon degeneration. In these cases, USGET represents, in my opinion, a most valid choice for several reasons:

  • The scarce invasivity, minal contra-indications make it preferable to other available techniques.
  • The simplicity of execution.
  • The way it perfectly integrates within the physiotherapeutic rehabilitation path.

 

Can you discuss more in depth the therapeutic advantages of USGET when compared to other available techniques?

Physical therapies, shock waves, and infiltrative techniques are just some of the techniques most widely used in the Interventional Physiatry field.

When compared to these other techniques, USGET certainly is less invasive and much more “precise”, while, for example, shock waves, which employ cavitation as a physical therapeutic phenomenon, are a much less “precise” technique.

USGET is also one of the less painful and costly treatments for the patient. The patient will in fact feel only a minimal amount of pain during the treatment which, if requested, can be preceded by a small local anesthesia.

In your experience, how do patients respond to USGET? On average, how many sessions are needed?

Responses vary on the basis of the clinical picture we are facing, but I have come to notice that the compliance of the patient to the treatment is also a key factor in the process.

On average, 2-3 sessions every 7 or 15 days are needed. Additionally, the treatment must also be associated both during and after the stimulation with physical exercise and a two months follow-up beginning with the first session.

What’s the role of USGET within a complete therapeutic project?

USGET fits perfectly within a rehabilitation path exploiting the tendinous reaction to the stimulation achieved by the continuous galvanic current.

However, USGET must not be considered as an antalgic treatment, i. e. as some kind of painkiller, since to this end we normally employ other procedures. In fact, USGET, by specifically using galvanic currents, can be employed as a first step to the natural regeneration of the tissues. A process which must be promptly followed by both a progressive overload and a functional recovery continuing over time.

A recent experience I have had performing USGET is this case of a crossfit athlete, affected by a strong form of patellar tendonitis (more commonly known as “Jumper’s Knee”). In this instance, three sessions every seven days of USGET alternating with eccentric exercises, followed by laser therapy sessions and manual therapy sessions for muscular support led to satisfactory results.

What is your opinion on other currents compared to the galvanic one?

USGET represents a valid option in my personal experience, although it partly needs some reassessment especially in regard to protocols which exploit high-energy levels discharged by the recently released Physio Invasiva 2.0 (whose current reaches up to 15 mA).

However, what really excites me about it is the possibility to combine rehabilitation paths with the adoption of antalgic currents like PES. The utilization of high voltage currents like PES 2.0 reinforce the effects obtained with the treatment of Galvanic Plus and it will also be the object of further research by me and my colleagues which have recently started adopting Physio Invasiva 2.0.

Previous Post
Why choose an hyperthermia device in physiotherapy
Next Post
Tecar therapy: T Care line working practices
Other articles
No results found.