Healing Magnetic Field Therapy (HMFT) - Be Hive Of Healing
magnetic field stimulation compared with electric current stimulation are . Getting the physics side of the equation right and the biological/medical side wrong. Your body naturally has magnetic and electric fields. All your molecules have a small amount of magnetic energy in them. The thought behind. “Researchers in the US claim that exposing a person to a magnetic field could that all sorts of magnetic and electrical interventions will be useful for diagnostic and The lack of a tight relationship between scientific evidence and academic.
The first noticeable effects appear after a series of treatments. The quality of the effects is positively affected by the continuation of treatments in the spa lat sanus per aquawhere there is a possibility to enrich the comprehensive physiotherapy for balneotherapy.
Such an approach increases the analgesic effect and extends the response [ 40 ]. Application of magnetic field in patients with rheumatoid arthritis The magnetic field of low frequency LF-EMF is commonly used in the treatment of patients with diseases of the osteoarticular system including RA [ 1621 ].
Both magnetotherapy treatments induction above 0. Therapy reduces the reactivity of the immune system in case of inflammatory and degenerative changes in the joints [ 10 ]. It also gives an analgesic and antiedematous effect [ 340 ]. The recommended treatment time is from 15 to 30 minutes, and the treatments are performed 1—2 times per day for several weeks [ 14 ]. The aim of the research carried out by Kumar et al. A sinusoidal unipolar magnetic field was applied with different parameters.
The activity of lysosomal enzymes, inflammatory cell infiltration as well as swelling were assessed. Optimal field parameters were 4 mT, 5 Hz and exposure time of 90 min in that case [ 41 ]. In studies by Dortch and Johnson [ 42 ] rats with experimentally induced rheumatoid arthritis were subjected daily to AC magnetic field with the parameters 10 mT and 5—50 Hz.
It has been shown that PEMF may be a useful therapeutic agent in the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis [ 42 ]. The studies showed a slight decrease in the level of pain after using magnetotherapy, although the change was not statistically significant. The authors concluded that magnetic therapy shows little analgesic effect in patients with RA [ 43 ]. The studies by Krawczyk-Wasielewska et al. Swelling, pain level and duration of morning stiffness were assessed before and after treatment.
There were no urinary symptoms after applying any physicotherapeutic factor. There was a decrease in swelling and reduction in the duration of morning stiffness. Cryotherapy, laser therapy, TENS and sonotherapy were considered the most effective by the authors [ 28 ]. Greaves and Harlow [ 44 ] evaluated the usefulness of the application of weak magnets in the observation of placebo effects in the studies on magnetotherapy.
They used magnets of mT as active magnets and magnets of 50 mT as a placebo. The authors concluded that the magnets of 50 mT may not be applied in a placebo trial, as in the subjective evaluation of the patients they have a therapeutic effect [ 44 ]. There was a statistically significant reduction in the level of pain as well as a statistically significant reduction in the dosage of NSAIDs in the group treated with magnetotherapy [ 39 ].
The studies of Walasik et al. The effectiveness of two sets of physiotherapy treatments used in group A sonotherapy, laser therapy and group B magnetic therapy, cryotherapy was compared.
The same kinesiotherapeutic program including manual hand exercises was used in both groups. It was found that applying physical procedures in combination with kinesiotherapy effectively limits the number of tender and swollen joints and reduces pain.
It was shown that a set consisting of magnetotherapy and cryotherapy is more effective [ 46 ]. Magnetic field intensity from 3 mT and a frequency of 5 Hz were used, gradually increasing parameters to 7.
In the group treated with laser stimulation, there was a reduction of pain in contrast to treatment with the magnetic field. A reduction in the number of swollen joints and improved quality of life were reported in both groups. Better results were obtained after laser therapy [ 47 ]. Reduction of pain after using iontophoresis, magnetotherapy as well as joint application of those treatments was obtained.
The results showed no significant differences between the effects of iontophoresis treatments and the effects of iontophoresis treatments supplemented with magnetotherapy [ 21 ].
The review by Eccles [ 48 ] included 21 studies and assessed their level of methodological quality. Eleven studies of high methodological quality confirmed the positive analgesic effect of permanent magnets on musculoskeletal, neuropathic, inflammatory and rheumatic pain.
The author concluded that published controlled clinical trials confirmed the analgesic effect of permanent magnets [ 48 ]. The review by Macfarlane et al. The static magnetic field of mT and 72 mT was compared.
A decrease in pain was observed in both groups. The authors also compared the efficacy of different therapies acupuncture, meditation, autogenic training, progressive muscle relaxation therapy, static magnetic field and tai chi in the treatment of patients with RA. The analgesic effectiveness of none of the listed therapies was explicitly confirmed; however, the overall health assessment performed at different time points after application of magnetotherapy improved.
No adverse events or side effects were observed in the course of therapy [ 22 ]. In summary, the magnetic field is a useful physical factor used in modern and comprehensive rehabilitation implemented in numerous dysfunctions and symptomatic syndromes. Magnetic fields and magnetic stimulation are effective in promoting the treatment of inflammatory diseases and musculoskeletal injuries, diseases of the nervous system, muscle tone disorders, and diseases of the digestive and urogenital system [ 10 ].
Rehabilitation of people with rheumatic diseases reduces pain and improves the functions of the musculoskeletal system, while reduction of stress has a positive effect on the psyche of the patient and improves quality of life [ 3649 ]. A doctor determines the type and way of conducting the therapy. They should choose a procedure which is the most effective and safe with regard to indications and contraindications in the recent literature of the subject [ 11429 ].
It is important to conduct a thorough interview with the patient, who may downplay their status or knowingly conceal disturbing symptoms [ 50 ]. Reactions to physiotherapy may arise from the nature of the disease, the stage of the disease, locomotor performance, the emotional condition of the patient and the degree of involvement in the treatment process [ 40 ]. The magnetic field is a natural method of treatment and is considered as an effective physical factor used in patients with RA [ 192851 ].
Medications often have side effects and can cause addiction, and therefore long-term use may not be well tolerated by the body and sometimes poses a significant risk [ 1119 ].
The analgesic effect of magnetotherapy can reduce pharmacotherapy [ 320 ]. Samborski [ 9 ] stresses that the solution is to complement pharmacological treatments with kinesiotherapy and physical treatments.
According to the author, it is a mistake to discontinue pharmacotherapy and replace it with physical therapy [ 9 ]. Efficacy of physical therapy, including magnetic field therapy, in patients with RA raises doubts in some authors [ 1752 ].
Issues related to the influence of LF-EMF on the human body are unresolved in the world of science and require further research [ 17 ]. Research on restrictions on the use of the magnetic field, precautions and possible side effects are still needed, as contraindications to the use of a given physical stimulus are often based on assumptions about the possibility of adverse effects, and not on the evidence obtained on the basis of studies of their biological properties [ 53 ].
Research of the highest methodological quality requires a control group with a placebo therapy. The lack of sensations during magnetotherapy treatment makes such clinical trials possible. According to Richmond, the difficulty in conducting research of the highest methodological quality with the participation of people with RA is that it is used in subjects who are administered long-term pharmacotherapy and the abandonment of it for the duration of the research projects is a problem of an ethical nature [ 19 ].
Some research projects do not take into account the long-term follow-up, and therefore the durability of treatment effects cannot be assessed as well as observation of the possible factors affecting the outcome during short-term follow-up. Summary The continuation of studies on the effects of magnetic fields on biological systems, the effects of therapy on the parameters of the magnetic field and the possibility of obtaining remote therapeutic effects is necessary.
The methodology of previously conducted clinical trials should be carefully but also critically analyzed due to the fact that the parameters quoted in the work and the units in which they are expressed sometimes raise doubts. The effects of longer follow-up are particularly important in studies that use questionnaires of disability as well as scales of quality of life. In addition, the inclusion of a group of patients as large and homogeneous as possible in the research will provide clear evidence of the effectiveness of magnetotherapy in the treatment of patients with RA.
This requires careful development and dissemination of methodological guidelines concerning the application of the magnetic field, which will provide optimal effects of such therapy. The authors declare no conflict of interest. Noninvasive treatment of inflammation using electromagnetic fields: The internal energies of Heisenberg magnetic systems. J Magn Magn Mater. The role of physiological elements in future therapies of rheumatoid arthritis. The role of the electromagnetic field in regulation of redox potential and life cycle of inflammatory cells.
Low frequency pulsed electromagnetic field- a viable alternative therapy for arthritis. Indian J Exp Biol. Ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
European Code against cancer and scientific justification. Centrum Onkologii — Instytut im. A randomised placebo-controlled crossover trial. The effect of selected physical procedures on mobility in women with rheumatoid arthritis. A systematic review of evidence for the effectiveness of practitioner-based complementary and alternative therapies in the management of rheumatic diseases: Tederko P, Krasuski M.
Short-term effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields after physical exercise are dependent on autonomic tone before exposure. Eur J Appl Physiol. More recently last 20 years or sosystems are applied externally, using a time varying pulsed electric signals, driven through a magnetic coil placed around the limb. Essentially an electric current in the applicator drives an electromagnetic field, and this in turn brings about small electric field changes in the tissues - induced - not direct - which are responsible for the physiological and therapeutic effects.
Typically, these generating currents will be applied at what we will call low frequency, typically up to Hz, though technically, these fall into the 'extreme low frequency' or ELF band.
It is certainly a case of 'more is not necessarily better' or less is more. There are literally hundreds of cell based studies which have reviewed and demonstrated cell level effects from these therapies at these low doses. They include membrane effects like the Ca ion channel changes and cytokine mediated effects e. Funk et al provide a reasonably succinct summary as do other reviews identified in the ref list.
Funk et al identify at least 7 different cell membrane based mechanisms through which magnetic and electric fields can influence activity see figure 34 page Bassett provides a simpler, but none the less useful consideration of how pulsing EM fields influence physiological activity. Bone Healing This is a massive topic and whole books have been written on it.
Most of the work has involved the delivery of PEMF energy using dynamic fields, and it is considered Bassett that it is the electric component rather than the magnetic component that has the primary effect.
Pickering et al review this field and identify as have others the complexity of dose, application method and mixed reporting of the intervention making dose estimation problematic and replication of the treatment almost impossible in some cases.
This does not deny the benefit, or at least the potential benefits of magnetic therapy. At the present time, the weight of the evidence falls in favour of PEMF applications, using a dynamic electric current to generate a varying electromagnetic field. This is sent to the tissues in which local bioelectric currents are induced, and it is these that are believed, and most strongly evidenced to positively influence bone repair. An example of a currently running clinical trial, in humans, evaluating PEMF application fresh scaphoid fractures can be found in Hannemann et al This type of trial should provide useful clinical data on which to base future intervention.
OA and Degenerative Conditions Many patients purchase home based magnetic therapy devices for their 'arthritis'. The adverts web, newspapaer to which they respond make a variety of interesting claims, some of which are probably supportable from the evidence, others rather less so. Sutbeyaz et al evaluated the effect of PEMF based therapy on pain, movement and functional capacity for a patient group with cervical OA.
The therapy was delivered via a mat which the patient used laid on for 30 minutes a session, 2 x daily for 3 weeks. The treatment group showed significant pain reduction whilst the placebo group did not.
Similarly, there were significant changes in range of movement and functional capacity. The mat produced an EM field with a mean strength of 40mT delivered in a pulsed mode at a range of frequencies between 0. There is nothing 'wrong' with pain relief and functional improvement - it is to be welcomed.
Despite some 'popular' claims about magnetic therapy halting the progress of arthritis, or even restoring the joint condition to normal which are not evidenced claimsit remain probable that the benefits of magnetic therapy for this patient group relates to pain relief - which is the primary complaint they have anyway.
Their review is primarily related to animal studies, though it does provide potentially useful information relating to therapy effects. This is an extension update of an earlier review Ohkubo et al, which considers static magnetic fields at 0. In animal therapy, the effects of static magnetic fields on local circulation especially in horses is often cited as an 'effect' of treatment.
Steyn evaluated a static magnetic field on blood flow in the horse metacarpus using a magnetic wrap for 48 hours. They were not able to identify any significant difference between treated and control limb blood flow perfusion. The wraps used were 'commercially available' and whilst the authors do not identify the power output, they do report that at 7mm from the wrap, the magnetic field was not greater than the 0.
The lack of significant effect may therefore simply be a demonstration that sufficient magnetic energy needs to be delivered in order for therapy based effects to be achieved.
Magnets Provide Amusement, But Not Health Benefits
Wound Healing Aziz et al has provided a Cochrane review on electromagnetic therapy for treating venous leg ulcers.
As ever with Cochrane reviews, there is a risk the useful trials are not included and secondly that there is commonly no 'dose' consideration. The authors conclude almost predictably that there is no strong evidence of benefit. Without trying too hard, it is easy to see that these are not the 'same' treatments. The Kenkre study did not show a difference between treated and sham treated ulcer healing.
The Cochrane paper teases these results further, but this is the essentials of it. Other studies provide equivocal evidence. Isahov et al used static magnetic therapy as a means to influence the healing of stump wounds in diabetic amputee patients.
They demonstrated no significant difference in healing times between treated and control groups, though their measurement of healing was 'different' to the normal, based on measured vs estimated repair time.
Magnet therapy - Wikipedia
The magnetic therapy was delivered for almost 48 hours on average. Jing et alMilgram et alGlinka et al are amongst a group of researchers who have evaluated mangnetic based therapy in animal healing models, some providing positive results and some not. It would appear that magnetic based therapy has the potential to positively influence wound healing, though the difference in positive and negative outcomes may simply reflect a dose based function which has yet to be resolved.
Musculoskeletal Injury, Soft Tissue Injury and Repair Numerous and varied trials have been conducted on soft tissue type problems. Owegi et al demonstrated a positive effect on tendon problems tendonitis.
Lee et al also evaluated the effects of PEMF based therapy on Achilles tendinitis Both Reeser et al and Mikesky and Hayden failed to demonstrate a beneficial effect for magnetic therapy on DOMS pain - but having looked at all the evidence on DOMS pain, almost nothing makes any real difference to it. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence with regards the efficacy of magnetic based therapies for soft tissue injury, but a dearth of clinical trials in real patients which are a meaningful and b demonstrate positive outcomes.
It may transpire that magnetic based therapiees are effective in this clinical domain, but the evidence is not there yet. Pain Relief Eccles provides a useful critical review for the use of static magnets in trials, looking at pain relief issues. He identified 21 studies for inclusion in the review. The pain types reported in the positive studies included in the Eccles review covered OA mainly kneedysmenorrhoea and menstrual pain, diabetic polyneuropathy foot painRA joint pain, fibromyalgia, chronic back pain, trigger points, pain post surgery, post polio pain.
In terms of dose, the trends appear thus: The magnet power in the positive studies varied from almost G 0. Power of at least G 0. They consider both changes in nociception and analgesia not the same thing. They consider therapy effects together with environmental exposure to EM fields in an insightful review. Hazelwood and Markov review the use of EMF based therapy for trigger points and various other pain related conditions. They consider the options of treating pain locally and using the therapy at trigger points in order to achieve a 'distant' effect.
They also consider in a review style treatment for chronic back pain and soft tissue injury. Trigger points Vallbona et al used a static magnetic field at between and G in a single 45 minute treatment of trigger points for a group of post polio pain sufferers. The real therapy generated significant reduction in pain over 4 points on a 10 point VAS scale - which is highly clinically significant.
The placebo group demonstrated an average reduction of just over 1 point. Their device delivered a pulsed shortwave The device was battery powered and incorporated into a dressing system.
Treatment was for 30 minutes every 4 hours automatic for days30 minutes every 8 hours for the next 3 days then 30 minutes every 12 hours thereafter till 8 days.
The device employed was a SofPulse as per the Heden and Pilla study. Strauch et al review the use of PEMF based therapy in various plastic surgery issues including pain, post op oedema, wound healing and enhanced repair.
The demonstrated significant pain relief in the treated group compared with the placebo group. The device was small, worn on a wrist strap and delivered both static and varying 20Hz magnetic fields.
The static field was measured at 0. Therapy was delivered for 2 hours each, twice daily for 2 months. Various nerve conduction tests were included, though no significant changes were identified between treatment and sham groups. Deveraux et al compared real with placebo PEMF for tennis elbow patients, treating for at least 8 weeks. Patients used the device for at least 8 hours a day overnight.
It was small and portable. The electrical power of the device is identified, but not its applied field strength, thus it is difficult to identify the strength of the PEMF therapy received by the patient.
The results show better improvement in the treatment group compared with the placebo group, though they did not generally reach statistical significance. Therapy was delivered 3 times weekly for three weeks. The treatment group demonstrated significant pain relief compared with the placebo group and functional improvements were also significant for the treatment group.
The treatment was clinic based no a small portable device - more like a classic pulsed shortwave in terms of size. It delivered pulses at 5 and 10Hz for 15 minutes at between 1. Lo et al report the outcome of a pilot clinical study using magnetic therapy for patients with lumbosacral spondylosis. Treatment was compared with a placebo intervention. This was 'different' in that the treatment was only delivered once. The machine Medtronic R30 delivers 2T per pulse with trains of 5 pulses delivered at 10Hz.
This is not a 'gentle' therapy - the power was adjusted such that visible muscle twitching was minimised! Clinical Application Summary There is a wide mix of research papers covering clinical applications and potential benefits. It may transpire that this therapy is useful for local vascular and microcirculatory effects and for soft tissue problems after injury but the supportive published evidence is not yet available.
References Al Mandil, M. Electromagnetic therapy for treating venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3: Colbert et al Colbert et al b. Del Seppia et al Devereaux et al Funk et al Glinka et al Giordano et al Hannemann et al A multicenter, prospective, double blind, placebo controlled, randomized trial. Isahov et al Jing et al Lee et al