Researches Page

Researches & Evidence of PEMF Therapy

non specific chronic lower back pain

International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences
Yavas AD. Int J Res Med Sci. 2023 Oct;11(10):3591-3596
www.msjonline.org https://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20232851

pISSN 2320-6071 | eISSN 2320-6012

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20232851

Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field on pain, functionality and quality
of life in the treatment of chronic non-specific low back pain: a
randomized controlled trial
Arzu Dinç Yavaş*

Department of Medicine, İstanbul Aydin University, İstanbul, Turkey
Received: 05 August 2023
Accepted: 08 September 2023
*Correspondence:
Dr. Arzu Dinç Yavaş,
E-mail: arzudinc0111@gmail.com
Copyright: © the author(s), publisher and licensee Medip Academy. This is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

ABSTRACT

Background: Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy is a new device and its efficiency on pain treatment needs to be
clarified. Our aim is to investigate the effects of PEMF therapy in combination with conventional physical therapy
modalities in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.

Methods: Prospective, randomized, patient-blinded, controlled trial with twenty-nine subjects having chronic
nonspecific LBP were randomized into experimental and control groups.
The experimental group received PEMF in addition to conventional physical therapy, whereas the control group
received a sham electromagnetic field with conventional physical therapy for ten sessions over a four-week period. Pain intensity, functional disability and lumbar range of motion measures were collected.

Results: Twenty-seven participants with chronic non-specific LBP completed the study (Experimental group N=13,
control group N=14). There were significant within-subject effects and treatment*time effects for pain intensity, ODI,
and lumbar ROM results. The change in pain intensity (p=0.004), ODI (p=0.012) and lumbar ROM (p<0.001) were
significantly higher in the PEMF group compared to the control group.

Conclusions: Compared to conventional physical therapy, combining PEMF therapy with conventional physical
therapy provides greater clinical improvement in terms of pain intensity, functional disability and lumbar ROM in
subjects with non-specific LBP.

post lumbar surgery pain/recovery

J Pain Res. 2018 Jun 22;11:1209–1222. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S164303
PMCID: PMC6018879 PMID: 29950893

Evaluation of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy for the treatment of chronic postoperative pain following lumbar surgery: a pilot, double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial

ABSTRACT

Background: The incidence of chronic postoperative pain following lumbar spinal surgery has increased with the overall increase in the prevalence of lumbar surgery. This study was conducted to evaluate the analgesic effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy in subjects with persistent pain following lumbar surgery.

Patients and Methods: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, multicenter study in 36 subjects with persistent low-back and/or radiating leg pain after lumbar surgery was conducted. Eligible subjects were randomized (1:1:1) to receive one of two doses of therapy (42-μs or 38-μs pulse width) or treatment with a sham device. Subjects self-treated twice daily for 60 days. The primary end point was change in pain intensity (∆PI) using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale between average baseline (Days −5 to −1) and end of treatment (Days 56–60) for lumbar and radiating leg pain. Secondary outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index, Beck Depression Inventory-II, Patient Global Impression of Change, and consumption of analgesics.

Results: Low-back pain scores for the 42-μs group decreased by 40.2% (p = 0.028), compared to 18.6% for the 38-μs pulse width group (p = 0.037) and 25.6% for the sham group (p = 0.013 per protocol population). Average leg pain scores decreased by 45.0% (42 μs, p = 0.009), 17.0% (38 μs, p = 0.293), and 24.5% (sham, p = 0.065). The proportion of subjects responding to therapy, time to 30% reduction in pain scores, and Patient Global Impression of Change were improved with the PEMF 42-μs device over the sham control, although results were associated with p-values >0.05.

Conclusions: PEMF therapy (42-μs pulse width) was associated with trends for a reduction in pain, compared to sham treatment. Secondary endpoints were consistent with an overall beneficial effect of the PEMF 42-μs pulse width device.

disc herniation / radiculopathy (sciatica)

Int J Rheum Dis
. 2012 Oct;15(5):e101-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-185X.2012.01745.x.

PMID: 23083041 DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-185X.2012.01745.x

Evaluation of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in the management of patients with discogenic lumbar radiculopathy

ABSTRACT

Aim: This randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate the effect of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF) in the management of patients with discogenic lumbar radiculopathy.

Methods: Forty patients suffering from lumbar radiculopathy due to lumbar disc prolapse were randomly assigned to one of two groups: a study group that included 20 patients who received PEMF therapy and a control group that included 20 patients who received placebo treatment. Both groups were evaluated at bases line and after 3 weeks by using a visual analogue scale (VAS) (0-10), somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) for selected dermatomes and Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (OSW), and findings were compared before and after treatment.

Results: Significant differences were observed between both groups before and after application of PEMF therapy relative to VAS (P=0.024), total OSW (P<0.001), and other domains of OSW score (pain intensity [P=0.009], personal care [P=0.01], lifting [P<0.001], walking [P<0.001], sitting [P<0.001], standing [P<0.001], sleeping [P<0.001], social life [P<0.001] and employment [P=0.003]). Other significant differences were observed between both groups relative to SSEP latency and amplitude of the evaluated dermatomes on the right side (P=0.022 and P=0.001, respectively), and left side latency and amplitude (P=0.016 and P=0.002, respectively).

Conclusions: PEMF therapy is an effective method for the conservative treatment of lumbar radiculopathy caused by lumbar disc prolapse. In addition to improvement of clinically observed radicular symptoms, PEMF also seems effective in reducing nerve root compression as evidenced by improvement of SSEP parameters after treatment.