Evaluating Noninvasive Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy for Joint and Soft Tissue Pain Management: A Prospective, Multi-center, Randomized Clinical Trial
Author: Joshua G Hackel1,2, James M Paci3,4, Sunny Gupta5, David A Maravelas6, Taylor J North7, Adelina Paunescu8
Affiliation:
1 The Andrews Institute for Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Pensacola, FL, USA. josh@hackelmd.com.
2 , 1040 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, FL, 32561, USA. josh@hackelmd.com.
3 The Orlin & Cohen Orthopedic Group at Northwell, Smithtown, NY, USA.
4 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, USA.
5 Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Marlton, NJ, USA.
6 , Minneapolis, MN, USA.
7 The Andrews Institute for Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Pensacola, FL, USA.
8 MEDIcept Inc., Ashland, MA, USA.
Conference/Journal: Pain Ther
Date published: 2025 Feb 10
Other:
Special Notes: doi: 10.1007/s40122-025-00711-z. , Word Count: 308
Introduction:
Strategies to reduce pharmacologic use for pain are needed. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy is a noninvasive, nonpharmacologic treatment for pain that modifies nitric oxide signaling to improve healing. This study examined whether PEMF decreased pain and pharmacologic use vs. standard-of-care (SOC) treatment for joint and soft tissue pain.
Methods:
This prospective, randomized controlled trial enrolled 120 patients presenting with joint or soft tissue pain at five orthopedic clinic sites. The PEMF group self-administered daily therapy from a commercially available device and the SOC group received standard treatment daily as prescribed by the clinician. Patients recorded their pain level, pharmacologic usage, and adverse events daily for 14 days. After 14 days, patients in the SOC group were given the option to crossover to PEMF therapy and continue for 16 days. The study was overseen by an independent clinical research organization. It was hypothesized that PEMF would be superior to SOC for pain management.
Results:
PEMF treatment provided significant analgesic benefits compared to SOC. Complete data was collected for 91 patients, 48 from the PEMF group and 43 from the SOC group. The least squares mean pain score change from baseline was - 1.8 (a 36% reduction) for the PEMF group, significantly surpassing - 0.46 (a 10% reduction) for the SOC group (p < 0.0001). Pharmacologic usage decreased from 40 to 18% for the PEMF group (a 55% reduction), while the SOC group decreased from 40 to 35% (a 12% reduction). In the crossover subgroup, patients experienced an additional 18% decrease in pain score and 63% decrease in pharmacologic use after switching from SOC to PEMF treatment.
Conclusions:
PEMF was significantly more effective than SOC at managing pain and reducing pharmacologic use. PEMF therapy should be considered for noninvasive, nonpharmacologic management of joint and soft tissue pain.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05244187.
Keywords: Bioelectronic therapy; Joint pain; Nitric oxide; Osteoarthritis pain management; PEMF; Pain medication; Pulsed electromagnetic field; Soft tissue injury.
PMID: 39928254 DOI: 10.1007/s40122-025-00711-z
BACK
