The aim of this study was to evaluate if pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF) has additional effect on the classical physical treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) composed of hot pack, therapeutic ultrasound, and terminal isometric exercises. Forty patients (29 women and 11 men), ages 44 to 78 (mean age was 61.3 ± 7.8 years) were included in our study. Patients with knee osteoarthritis [Kellgren–Lawrence criteria grade 2 and above and an average pain intensity of 40 or more on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS)] recruited from outpatient physical medicine and rehabilitation clinic were randomly assigned to receive PEMF or sham PEMF treatment in addition to their physical therapy. Both the PEMF and sham PEMF treatments being evaluated were 55 min/session, five sessions per week for 2 weeks. Each session comprise 20-min hot pack, 5-min therapeutic ultrasound, and 30-min PEMF or sham PEMF treatment applied to the knee of the patients. Patients were evaluated by the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index and VAS at the baseline and at the end of treatment. Both PEMF and sham PEMF treatment groups showed statistically significant improvement in WOMAC pain and functional scores at the end of treatment (p < 0.001 in both groups). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in WOMAC pain, stiffness, and physical function scores after treatment (p = 0.906, p = 0.855, p = 0.809, respectively). There was neither difference in concomitant used acetaminophen dose in both groups (p = 0.289). The results of this study show that PEMF does not have additional effect on the classical physical treatment in reducing symptoms of knee OA.
Knee Osteoarthritis Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
No conflict of interest has been declared by all authors.
McCarthy CJ, Callaghan MJ, Oldham JA (2006) Pulsed electromagnetic energy treatment offers no clinical benefit in reducing the pain of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 51:1–5. doi:10.1186/s1471-2474-7-51Google Scholar
Thamsborg G, Florescu A, Oturai P, Fallentin E, Tritsaris K, Dissingi S (2005) Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with pulsed electromagnetic fields: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 13:575–581. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2005.02.012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Trock DH, Bollet AJ, Dyer RH Jr, Fielding LP, Miner WK, Markoll R (1993) A double-blind trial of the clinical effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 20:456–460PubMedGoogle Scholar
Trock DH, Bollet AJ, Markoll R (1994) The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee and cervical spine. Report of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. J Rheumatol 21:1903–1911PubMedGoogle Scholar
Trock DH (2000) Electromagnetic fields and magnets. Investigational treatment for musculoskeletal disorders. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 26:51–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Zizic TM, Hoffman KC, Holt PA, Hungerford DS, O’Dell JR, Jacobs MA et al (1995) The treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee with pulsed electrical stimulation. J Rheumatol 9:1757–1761Google Scholar
Brazier JE, Harper R, Munro J, Walters SJ, Snaith ML (1999) Generic and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology (Oxford) 38:870–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atamaz F, Hepguler S, Oncu J (2005) Translation and validation of the Turkish version of the arthritis impact measurement scales 2 in patients with knee osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 32:1331–1336PubMedGoogle Scholar
Aaron RK, Boyan BD, Ciombor DM, Schwartz Z, Simon BJ (2004) Stimulation of growth factor synthesis by electric and electromagnetic fields. Clin Orthop 419:30–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
De Mattei M, Caruso A, Pezzetti F, Pellati A, StabelliniG SV (2001) Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on human articular chondrocyte proliferation. Connect Tissue Res 42:269–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Pezzetti F, De Mattei M, Caruso A, Cadossi R, Zucchini P, Carinci F et al (1999) Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on human chondrocytes: an in vitro study. Calcif Tissue Int 65:396–401. doi:10.1007/s002239900720CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Diniz P, Soejima K, Ito G (2002) Nitric oxide mediates the effects of pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation on the osteoblast proliferation and differentiation. Nitric Oxide 7:18–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Fini M, Torricelli P, Giavaresi G, Aldini NN, Cavani F, Setti S, Nicolini A, Carpi A, Giardino R (2008) Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation on knee cartilage, subchondral and epyphiseal trabecular bone of aged Dunkin Hartley guinea pigs. Biomed Pharmacother 62:709–715. doi:10.1016/j.biopha.2007.03.001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
De Mattei M, Pasello M, Pellati A, Stabellini G, Massari L, Gemmati D, Caruso A (2003) Effects of electromagnetic fields on proteoglycanmetabolism of bovine articular cartilage explants. Connect Tissue Res 44:154–159PubMedGoogle Scholar