Scientific Information and Research Data

Bioelectric phenomena have been a part of medicine throughout its history.

The first written document on bioelectric events is an ancient Egyptian hieroglyph of 4000 B.C. describing the electric sheatfish.

Electromedicine has survived the scrutiny of many researchers in the past 100 years or so and is a proven modality for the encouragement of fracture healing and general pain relief.

Bioelectromagnetism is, of course, based strongly on the general theory of electromedicine. In fact, until the middle of the nineteenth century the history of electromedicine was also the history of bioelectromagnetism.

From the viewpoint of modern science, bioelectric phenomena have had scientific value for the past 200 years. Many of the fundamental contributions to the theory of bioelectromagnetism were made in the nineteenth century.

Only in the past 100 years has bioelectromagnetism had real diagnostic or therapeutic value. As we know, this is actually the case for most of medicine as well.

Pulsed Magnetic Field Therapy Clinical Trials

The clinical trials listed are all independent trials designed to test the modality of PMFT and were conducted by various academic and medical establishments:

Effects of Pulsed Magnetic Field Therapy (PEMF) in the Treatment of Chronic Pain - A Pilot Study

DR. YIP YU LAP, M.B.B.S. ER.C.S., Head, Dept. of Surgery
MR LAW YUEN TUNG, Head, Dept. of Physiotherapy
MR. YEUNG KAI KAI, Staff, Dept. of Physiotherapy
MR CHU LAI PING, Staff, Dept. of Physiotherapy
MR BU YING KIT, Head, Clinical Laboratory
Pok Oi Hospital

ABSTRACT

The value of pulsed magnetic field therapy in the treatment of pain was tested in a simple longitudinal study. In 22 patients with chronic pain refractory to conventional conservative methods, PEMF at 60 Gauss, 10 Hz was administered for 20 minutes per day for 10 days Pain was assessed by use of a linear pain analogue scale, before and after each treatment session of the course. All patients showed significant subjective pain improvement after treatment.

KEYWORDS

Pulsed magnetic field therapy, electrotherapy, pain, chronic pain

INTRODUCTION

Chronic bone and soft tissue pain is a very common clinical problem. It can be disabling in those who do not respond satisfactorily to analgesics or local steroids, too high or too prolonged prescription of which may lead to significant side effects. (Anonymous 1982) The underlying pathology may be quite heterogeneous, with fracture, delayed union, neuroma formation or collagen tissue abnormality as possible contributing factors. Of the various modalities of physical therapy, the application of pulsatile magnetic field of significant intensity to the diseased tissue, or pulsed magnetic field therapy (PMFT) have been reported to accelerate bone repair, nerve regeneration, skin ulcer healing, recovery from soft tissue injury, and collagen formation, all of which are mentioned as possible pathogenetic factors of chronic pain. Thus it could have great potential in the treatment of chronic pain.

Pulsed magnetic field therapy for tibial non-union. Interim results of a double-blind trial.

Barker AT, Dixon RA, Sharrard WJ, Sutcliffe ML.

Patients with tibial fractures which had remained un-united for at least 52 weeks were randomly allocated to either active or dummy pulsed magnetic field stimulators and treated in full leg plasters for 24 weeks with a non-weightbearing conservative regimen, as is usual with such techniques. Fractures in 5 of the 9 patients with working machines united and fractures in 5 of the 7 patients with dummy machines also united. These early results of this double-blind trial are compatible with a difference in success rate at 24 weeks on active treatment of + 33% to -61% (95% confidence limits) compared with the success rate on the dummy stimulators. The high proportion of fractures uniting in the control group suggests that conservative management of non-union is effective and this may explain much of the success attributed to pulsed magnetic field therapy.

Pulsed magnetic field therapy for osteoarthritis of the knee--a double-blind sham-controlled trial.

Nicolakis P, Kollmitzer J, Crevenna R, Bittner C, Erdogmus CB, Nicolakis J.

Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, AKH Wien, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: Pulsed magnetic field therapy is frequently used to treat the symptoms of osteoarthritis, although its efficacy has not been proven. We conducted a randomized, double-blind comparison of pulsed magnetic field and sham therapy in patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee. Patients were assigned to receive 84 sessions, each with a duration of 30 minutes, of either pulsed magnetic field or sham treatment. Patients administered the treatment on their own at home, twice a day for six weeks. RESULTS: According to a sample size estimation, 36 consecutive patients were enrolled. 34 patients completed the study, two of whom had to be excluded from the statistical analysis, as they had not applied the PMF sufficiently. Thus, 15 verum and 17 sham-treated patients were enrolled in the statistical analysis. After six weeks of treatment the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index was reduced in the pulsed magnetic field-group from 84.1 (+/- 45.1) to 49.7 (+/- 31.6), and from 73.7 (+/- 43.3) to 66.9 (+/- 52.9) in the sham-treated group (p = 0.03). The following secondary parameters improved in the pulsed magnetic field group more than they did in the sham group: gait speed at fast walking [+6.0 meters per minute (1.6 to 10.4) vs. -3.2 (-8.5 to 2.2)], stride length at fast walking [+6.9 cm (0.2 to 13.7) vs. -2.9 (-8.8 to 2.9)], and acceleration time in the isokinetic dynamometry strength tests [-7.0% (-15.2 to 1.3) vs. 10.1% (-0.3 to 20.6)]. CONCLUSION: In patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee, PMF treatment can reduce impairment in activities of daily life and improve knee function.

Pulsed magnetic field (PMF) stimulation was applied to mammalian neurons in vitro to influence axonal growth and to determine whether induced current would direct and enhance neurite growth in the direction of the current. Two coils were constructed from individual sheets of copper folded into a square coil. Each coil was placed in a separate water-jacketed incubator. One was energized by a waveform generator driving a power amplifier, the other was not energized. Whole dorsal root ganglia (DRG) explant cultures from 15-day Sprague-Dawley rat embryos were established in supplemented media plus nerve growth factor (NGF) at concentrations of 0-100 ng/mL on a collagen-laminin substrate. Dishes were placed at the center of the top and bottom of both coils, so that the DRG were adjacent to the current flowing in the coil. After an initial 12 h allowing DRG attachment to the substrate floor, one coil was energized for 18 h, followed by a postexposure period of 18 h. Total incubation time was 48 h for all DRG cultures. At termination, DRG were histochemically stained for visualization and quantitative analysis of neurite outgrowth. Direction and length of neurite outgrowth were recorded with respect to direction of the current. PMF exposed DRG exhibited asymmetrical growth parallel to the current direction with concomitant enhancement of neurite length. DRG cultures not PMF exposed had a characteristic radial pattern of neurite outgrowth. These results suggest that PMF may offer a noninvasive mechanism to direct and promote nerve regeneration. Bioelectromagnetics 21:272-286, 2000. © 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Electromedicine research

The first documented use of electricity to manage pain was by the physician Scribonius Largus in 46AD.  He claimed that just about anything from head to toe (specifically headaches to gout) could be cured by standing on a wet beach near an electric eel. Not surprisingly, attempts at producing pharmaceutical preparations from dead eels proved ineffective. 

In 1791, Luigi Galvani discovered that electrical impulses could cause muscle contraction. 

By 1800, Carlo Matteucci showed that injured tissue generates an electric current. 

The discovery of alternating current by Faraday in 1830 opened the door to the development of man-made devices as sources of electricity.  Over 10,000 medical practitioners in the United States alone made use of electrotherapeutic modalities in the early 20th Century.

But arguably the greatest development in the field of electromedicine was when Becker in 1981 electrically induced limb reaction in frogs and rats as a model to study bioelectrical forces as a controlling morphogenetic field. Becker proposed that a primitive direct current data transmission and control system exists in biological systems for the regulation of growth and healing. His studies of extraneural analogue electrical morphogenetic fields have eliminated any rational arguments against the importance of bioelectricity for all life processes. 

Becker has also laid the groundwork for the medical professions to start to evolve towards a more reasonable integrated view of biology incorporating our understanding of both biochemistry and biophysics.

Dr Bjorn Nordenstrom, MD, former Chairman of the Nobel Assembly, has also proposed a model of bioelectrical control systems that he calls biologically closed electric circuits.  The principal is analogous to closed circuits in electronic technology.  Nordenstrom’s theory is that the mechanical blood circulation system is closely integrated anatomically and physiologically with a bioelectrical system.

The Concept of Bioelectromagnetism

Bioelectromagnetism is a discipline that examines the electric, electromagnetic, and magnetic phenomena which arise in biological tissues.

These phenomena include:

·     The behaviour of excitable tissue (the sources)

·     The electric currents and potentials in the volume conductor

·     The magnetic field at and beyond the body

·     The response of excitable cells to electric and magnetic field stimulation

·     The intrinsic electric and magnetic properties of the tissue

It is important to separate the concept of bioelectromagnetism from the concept of medical electronics; the former involves bioelectric, bioelectromagnetic, and biomagnetic phenomena and measurement and stimulation methodology, whereas the latter refers to the actual devices used for these purposes.

By definition, bioelectromagnetism is interdisciplinary since it involves the association of the life sciences with the physical and engineering sciences. Consequently, we have a special interest in those disciplines that combine engineering and physics with biology and medicine.

For more reasearch and scientific data please visit the Painwave website: www.Painwave.co.uk