Effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on pain, functional status, and quality of life in patients with chronic non-specific neck pain: A prospective, randomized-controlled study

Energizing Healing with Electromagnetic Field Therapy in Musculoskeletal Disorders

There is mounting evidence to suggest that exogenous electromagnetic fields (EMF) may play a significant role in various biological processes that are crucial to therapeutic interventions. EMFs have been identified as a non-invasive, safe, and effective therapy that appears to have no apparent side effects. Numerous studies have demonstrated that pulsed EMFs (PEMFs) have the potential to become a stand-alone or adjunctive treatment modality for managing musculoskeletal disorders. However, several questions remain unresolved. Before their widespread clinical application, further research from well-designed, high-quality studies is required to standardize treatment parameters and determine the optimal protocol for healthcare decision-making. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the impact of musculoskeletal diseases on overall well-being, the limitations of conventional treatments, and the need to explore alternative therapeutic modalities such as electromagnetic field (EMF) therapy. EMF therapy uses low-frequency electromagnetic waves to stimulate tissue repair, reduce inflammation, and modulate pain signals, making it a safe and convenient alternative to conventional treatments. The article also discusses the historical perspective of EMF therapy in medicine. The article highlights the potential of EMF therapy as a personalized and comprehensive care option for musculoskeletal diseases, either alone or in conjunction with other therapies. It emphasizes the imperative for further research in this field and presents a compelling case for the use of EMF therapy in managing musculoskeletal diseases. Overall, the available findings on the underlying cellular and molecular biology support the use of EMF therapy as a viable option for the management of musculoskeletal disorders and stresses the need for continued research in this area.

The effectiveness of deep tissue massage on pain, trigger point, disability, range of motion and quality of life in individuals with myofascial pain syndrome

PURPOSE

This study aims to examine the effect of deep tissue massage (DTM) on the myofascial trigger point (MTrP) number, neck range of motion (ROM), pain, disability and quality of life in patients with Myofacial pain syndrome (MPS).

METHODS

The study involved patients with MPS between the ages of 20-57. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: the control group (n = 40) and the study group (n = 40). Transcutaneous Electrical Neuromuscular Stimulation (TENS), hotpack and ultrasound were applied to 40 patients in the control group. The study group was also administered DTM for 12 sessions in addition to TENS, hotpack and ultrasound applications. Neck pain and disability scale (NPDS) for a neck disability, universal goniometer for neck ROM, MTrP count using manual palpation, Short Form 36 (SF-36) for quality of life and severity of neck pain were evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS). All patients were evaluated before and after treatment.

RESULTS

It was found that the DTM group has statistically more improvement than the control group for VAS, NPDS and SF-36. Moreover, although there was a significant improvement in favour of the study group for extension, lateral flexion, right rotation and left rotation in the neck ROM, there was no significant difference in flexion measurements between the study and control group.

CONCLUSION

In addition to the traditional rehabilitation program, DTM is effective on neck ROM, pain, disability and quality of life. Therefore, DTM treatment is a safe and inexpensive treatment method that can be applied in patients with MPS.

Efficacy of Two Types of Noninvasive Nerve Stimulation in the Management of Myofascial Pain Caused by Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Disorders

Background A range of diseases affecting the jaw muscles and/or temporomandibular joint are referred to as temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). Nearly 80% of the general population is affected by TMDs, and 48% of those people have trouble opening their mouths and have painful muscles. Aim To compare the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and microcurrent nerve stimulation (MENS) for the relief of masticatory muscle discomfort. Methods Groups I and II were further separated into two groups of 30 persons each (A and B), as well as subgroups C and D. Subjects in Group I received TENS treatment for 20 minutes at frequencies of 0-5 and 5-5 for subgroups A and B, and with visual analog scale (VAS) scores of 1-5 and 6-10 for subgroups C and D, respectively. Subjects in Group II received MENS for 20 minutes, with subgroups C and D receiving the same frequency and VAS score as subgroups A and B, respectively. All individuals underwent treatment with a comparable frequency and length of time every day for five days. Results For subgroup D treated with MENS, there was a considerable reduction in pain; however, for subgroups A and C, there was a comparable reduction in the VAS score for both groups treated with MENS and TENS therapy. Conclusion Compared to TENS, MENS provides quicker and more effective pain relief. Paresthesia and tingling are two adverse effects of TENS that are not present with MENS. However, MENS and TENS are equally helpful at treating masticatory muscle discomfort that is both acute and chronic, as well as improving mouth opening.

A Prospective Comparative Study of Pulsed High-Intensity Laser Therapy and Pulsed Electromagnetic Field on Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain

Objective: This study explored the different effects of pulsed high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) versus pulsed electromagnetic field (EMF) in the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain (ChNsLBP). Methods: Between August and December 2019, 51 ChNsLBP participants with a mean age of 35.2 ± 8.6 years were enrolled in this prospective comparative study. At random, they were divided into three groups, 17 in each; HILT, EMF, and controls. HILT group was recruited for Nd:YAG laser using the following parameters: a wavelength of 1064 nm, fluency of 610-810 mJ, frequency of 10-40 Hz, average power of 10.5 W, and 120 μs short pulse duration in scanning mode. All groups received the treatment twice a week for 8 consecutive weeks. They were assessed for the modified Oswestry disability index (MODI), pain disability index (PDI), visual analog scale (VAS), and lumbar flexion range of motion (flex ROM) before and after 8 weeks of study program. Results: The results showed greater improvement in the HILT group (VAS, PDI, MODI, and lumbar flex ROM, p = 0.001) than the EMF group (VAS, p = 0.002, PDI, p = 0.045, MODI, p = 0.002, and lumbar flex ROM, p = 0.042), with significant difference between the two groups in favor of the HILT group (p ˂ 0.05). Conclusions: Depending on the results of the study, both HILT and EMF are useful physiotherapy modalities in the treatment of ChNsLBP with HILT exhibiting better outcomes than EMF. Clinical recommendations should be highlighted to instigate the use of HILT in the management of musculoskeletal disorders, distinctively ChNsLBP.