Author: Gülşah Yaşa Öztürk1, Ayşegül Yetişir2, Burhan Fatih Kocyigit3
Affiliation: <sup>1</sup> Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Health Sciences, Adana City Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Türkiye. gulsahyasaozturk@gmail.com.
<sup>2</sup> Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Division of Rheumatology, Çukurova University, Adana, Türkiye.
<sup>3</sup> Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Health Sciences, Adana City Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Türkiye.
Conference/Journal: Rheumatol Int
Date published: 2024 Jun 25
Other:
Special Notes: doi: 10.1007/s00296-024-05645-x. , Word Count: 321
Background:
Low back pain that lasts longer than three months is called chronic low back pain. Chronic low back pain is among the most common problems in the world, causing severe disability and loss of employment in patients.
Objective:
To investigate the effect of pulse electromagnetic field therapy (PEMFT) added to routine physical therapy on pain and functional status in patients with chronic low back pain.
Methods:
This retrospective comparative study included 69 patients with chronic low back pain. The patients were divided into two groups: those who received lumbar transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, infrared, and ultrasound treatments, and those who additionally received PEMFT. The files of patients with chronic low back pain were reviewed, and those who had been evaluated using the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) in terms of functional capacity and effects of low back pain and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain both before and after treatment were included in the study.
Results:
No significant difference was detected between the two groups' pretreatment VAS and QBPDS scores (p > 0.05). The second-and-third measurement scores of both groups were significantly lower than their first-measurement VAS and QBPDS scores (p ˂ 0.001), but there was no significant difference between their second- and third-measurement scores (p > 0.05). According to the inter-group comparison of the VAS and QBPDS scores, the second and third-measurement scores of the PEMFT group were significantly lower than those of the control group (p ˂ 0.001).
Conclusions:
PEMFT seems to be able to alleviate pain intensity and ameliorate disability in patients with chronic low back pain. PEMFT can be considered an effective and safe option that can be added to routine physical therapy modalities for relieving chronic low back pain frequently encountered in clinical practice. Further studies validating the effectiveness of PEMFT could strengthen its position in the management of chronic low back pain.
Keywords: Disability; Low back pain; Magnetic field therapy; Physical therapy modalities.
PMID: 38914776 DOI: 10.1007/s00296-024-05645-x