Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields in the treatment of cervical osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial

Rheumatology International volume 26, pages 320–324 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF) on pain, range of motion (ROM) and functional status in patients with cervical osteoarthritis (COA). Thirty-four patients with COA were included in a randomized, double-blind study. PEMF was administrated to the whole body using a mat 1.8×0.6 m in size. During the treatment, the patients lay on the mat for 30 min per session, twice a day for 3 weeks. Pain levels in the PEMF group decreased significantly after therapy (p<0.001), but no change was observed in the placebo group. The active ROM, paravertebral muscle spasm and neck pain and disability scale (NPDS) scores improved significantly after PEMF therapy (p<0.001) but no change was observed in the sham group. The results of this study are promising, in that PEMF treatment may offer a potential therapeutic adjunct to current COA therapies in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Lagattuta FP, Falco FJE (2000) Assessment and treatment of cervical spine disorders. In: Braddom RL (ed) Physical medicine & rehabilitation, 2nd edn. W.B Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 782–786

    Google Scholar 

  2. Borenstein DG (1998) The spine: low back pain. In: Klippel JD, Dieppe PA (eds) Rheumatology, 2nd edn. Mosby, London, pp 4.3.1–4.3.26

    Google Scholar 

  3. Duggan AW (1992) Neuropharmacology of pain. Curr Opin Neurol Neurosurg 5:503–507

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Persson LCG, Lilja A (2001) Pain, coping, emotional state and physical function in patients with chronic radicular neck pain. A comparison between patients treated with surgery, physiotherapy or neck collar—a blind prospective randomized study. Disabil Rehabil 23(8):325–335

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ozdemir F, Birtane M, Kokino S (2001) The clinical efficacy of low-power laser therapy on pain and function in cervical osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol 20:181–184

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pipitone N, Scott DL (2001) Magnetic pulse treatment for knee osteoarthritis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Curr Med Res Opin 17:190–196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jacobson JI, Gorman R, Yamanashi WS, Saxena BB, Clayton L (2001) Low-amplitude, extremely low frequency magnetic fields for the treatment of osteoarthritic knees: a double-blind clinical study. Altern Ther 7(5):54–68

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Farndale RW, Murray JC (1985) Pulsed electromagnetic fields promote collagen production in bone marrow fibroblasts via athermal mechanisms. Calcif Tissue Int 37:178–182

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pezzetti F, De-Mattei M, Caruso A, Cadessi R, Zucchini P, Carinci F et al (1999) Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on human chondrocytes: an in vitro study. Calcif Tissue Int 65:396–402

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fredericks DC, Nepola JV, Baker JT, Abbott J, Simon B (2000) Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on bone healing in a rabbit tibial osteotomy model. J Orthop Trauma 14:93–100

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Holmes GB (1994) Treatment of delayed unions and non-unions of the proximal fifth metatarsal with pulsed electromagnetic fields. Foot Ankle Int 15:552–556

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Loy T (1983) Treatment of cervical spondylosis. Med J Aust 2:32–34

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cooper C (1998) Osteoarthritis and related disorders. Epidemiyology. In: Klippel JH, Dieppe PA (eds) Rheumatology, 2nd edn. Mosby, London, pp 8.2.1–8.2.8.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Carlsson AM (1983) Assessment of chronic pain: aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain 16:87–101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wheeler AH, Goolkasion P, Baird AC, Darden BV (1999) Development of neck pain and disability scale. Item analysis, face, and criterion-related validity. Spine 24:1290–1294

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bıcer A, Yazıcı A, Camdeviren H, Erdogan C (2004) Assessment of pain and disability in patients with chronic neck pain: reliability and construct validity of the Turkish version of the Neck Pain and Disability Scale. Disabil Rehabil 26(16):959–962

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wolfenberger VA, Bui Q, Batenchuk GB (2002) A comparison of methods of evaluating cervical range of motion. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 25(3):154–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wlodyka-Demaille S, Poiraudeau S, Catanzariti JF, Rannou F, Fermanian J, Revel M (2004) The ability to change of three questionnaires for neck pain. Joint Bone Spine 71:317–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rubin CT, Mcleod KJ, Lanyon LE (1989) Prevention of osteoporosis by pulsed electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg 71:411–417

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tabrah F, Hoffmeier M, Gilbert FJR, Batkin S, Basset CA (1990) Bone density changes in osteoporosis-prone women exposed to pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFS). J Bone Miner Res 5:437–442

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 20:456–460

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Carley PJ, Wainapel SF (1985) Electrotherapy for acceleration of wound healing: low intensity direct current. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 66:443–446

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Quittan M, Schuhfried O, Wiesinger GF, Fialka-Maser V (2000) Clinical effectiveness of magnetic field therapy—a review of the literature. Acta Med Austriaca 27:61–68

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hulme J, Robinson V, DeBie R, Wells G, Judd M, Tugwell P (2002) Electromagnetic fields for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD OO3523

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nicolakis P, Kollmitzer J, Crevenna R, Bittner C, Erdogmus CD, Nicolakis J (2002) Pulsed magnetic field therapy for osteoarthritis of the knee—a double-blind sham-controlled trial. Wien Klin Wochenschr 114:678–684

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gross AR, Aker PD, Goldsmith CH, Peloso P (2000) Physical medicine modalities for mechanical neck disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD000961 (PMID: 10796402)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Furst DE, Hillson J (2001) Aspirin and other nonsteroidal antiinflamatory drugs. In: Koopman WJ (ed) Arthritis and Allied Conditions, 14th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 665–703

    Google Scholar 

  28. Trock DH, Bollet AJ, Markoll R (1994) The effect of pulsed electromagnetic field in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee and cervical spine. Report of randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trials. J Rheumatol 21:1903–1911

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Foley-Nolan D, Barry C, Coughan RJ, O’Connor P, Roden D (1990) Pulsed high frequency (27 MHz) electromagnetic therapy for persistent neck pain. A double blind, placebo-controlled study of 20 patients. Orthopedics 13:445–451

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Murray JC, Farndale RW (1985) Modulation of collagen production in cultured fibroblasts by a low-frequency pulsed magnetic field. Biochim Biophys Acta 838:98–105

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Smith RL, Nagel DA (1983) Effects of pulsing electromagnetic fields on bone growth and articular cartilage. Clin Orthop 181:277–282

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Diniz P, Shomura K, Soejima K, Ito G (2002) Effects of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation on bone-tissue-like formation are dependent on the maturation stages of the osteoblasts. Bioelectromagnetics 23:398–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Aaron RK, Ciombor DM (1992) Synergistic effects of growth factors and pulsed fields on proteoglycan synthesis in articular cartilage. J Orthop Res 17:527

    Google Scholar 

  34. Goodman R, Weu LX, Xu JL, Henderson A (1989) Exposure of human cells to low-frequency electromagnetic fields results in quantitative changes in transcripts. Biochem Biophys Acta 1009:216–220

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Belma Fusun Koseoglu

    Present address:  , Barissitesi53.sokNo:1, Bilkent Kavsagi Ankara, 06530, Turkey

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ankara Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Education and Research Hospital, Turk ocagi S No: 3 Sihhiye, Ankara, Turkey

    Serap Tomruk Sutbeyaz, Nebahat Sezer & Belma Fusun Koseoglu

Authors
  1. Serap Tomruk Sutbeyaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nebahat Sezer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Belma Fusun Koseoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Belma Fusun Koseoglu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sutbeyaz, S.T., Sezer, N. & Koseoglu, B.F. The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields in the treatment of cervical osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial. Rheumatol Int 26, 320–324 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-005-0600-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-005-0600-3

Keywords

search

Navigation