PEMF and Diabetes
Abstracts of studies on the use of PEMF with Diabetes
I.B. Kirillov et al.: ‘Magnetotherapy in the Comprehensive Treatment of Vascular Complications of Diabetes Mellitus,’ Klin Med, 74 (5), 1996, pp. 39-41. – In this study 320 diabetics were treated with PEMF, while 100 diabetics as a control group received only conservative therapy. These results show a positive effect, especially in the area of vascular complications, with 74% of the patients with PEMF achieving positive results but only 28% in the comparative group achieving these results.
Lau et al.: ‘Effect of Low Frequency Low Intensity Electromagnetic Field on Diabetic Neuropathy,’ Dept. of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, USA. Scientific Report. – 76% of the patients achieved a definite reduction in symptoms compared to only 17% in the control group. The pain, numbness, itching and tingling sensations subsided.
R.A. Kuliev, R.F. Babaev: ‘PEMF combined with conventional treatment of suppurative Wounds in Diabetes Mellitus,’ Vestn Khir Im I I Grek, 148 (1), January 1992, pp. 33-36. – This study shows that PEMF can significantly accelerate healing in 72 diabetics with purulent wound infections. Results of this study indicated that treatment with pulsating electromagnetic field either alone or in combination with laser therapy exhibited healing effects with respect to peripheral nerve lesions and general wound healing relative to controls.
A.V. Alekseenko et al.: ‘Use of PEMF Combined with Galvanization and Tissue Electrophoresis in the Treatment of Trophic Ulcers,’ Klein Khir (7-8), 1993, pp. 31-34. – PEMF was investigated on 86 patients with skin ulcers. On the basis of the study results, the author recommends the use of PEMF for skin ulcers on the lower extremities.
Comorosan S, Vasilco R, Arghiropol M, Paslaru L, Jieanu V, Stelea Fundeni Hospital, Bucharest, Romania. Romania Journal of Physiol., 30 (1-2), 1993, pp. 41-45. The effect of PEMF on pressure ulcers has been studied on 20 elderly patients, hospitalized and bearing long-standing pressure ulcers. All were subjected to PEMF 1 -2 times daily parallel to conventional treatment. 5 control group patients underwent only conventional therapy, 5 others conventional + placebo PEMF treatment. After 2-weeks treatment, bulge healing rate was as follows: under PEMF 85% excellent and 15% very good healing; in the placebo group, 80% no improvement and 20% poor improvement; in the control group, 60% no improvement and 40% poor improvement. PEMF is strongly advised as a modern, uninvasive therapy of great efficiency.
Stiller, Pak, Shupack, Thaler, Kenny, Jondreau; NY University Medical Centre, British Journal of Dermatology, 127 (2), 1992. A randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled multi-centre study assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of PEMF in the healing of recalcitrant, predominantly venous leg ulcers. For 8 weeks a portable device was used at home for 3 h daily as an adjunct to a wound dressing. Wound surface area, ulcer depth and pain intensity were assessed. 50% of the ulcers in the active group healed or markedly improved vs. 0% in the placebo group. 0% of the active group worsened vs. 54% of the placebo group (P < 0.001). PEMF is a safe and effective adjunct to non-surgical therapy for leg ulcers.
Ieran, Zaffuto, Bagnacani, Annovi, Moratti, Cadossi; Medical Angiology, Reggio Emilia, Italy. Double blind study on the effect of PEMF on the healing of skin ulcers. 44 patients; one-half exposed to active stimulators and the remaining to dummy stimulators (control group). The PEMF therapy lasted 90 days. The success rate in the experimental group was significantly higher after 90 days (p less than 0.02) and in the follow-up period (p less than 0.005). The data suggest that the effect of PEMF lasts even when the stimulation is over. No ulcers worsened in the experimental group, while four worsened in the control group. It is concluded that stimulation with PEMF is a useful adjunctive therapy.
PMID: 2303961 PubMed
I.B. Kirillov et al.: ‘Magnetotherapy in the Comprehensive Treatment of Vascular Complications of Diabetes Mellitus,’ Klin Med, 74 (5), 1996, pp. 39-41. – In this study 320 diabetics were treated with PEMF, while 100 diabetics as a control group received only conservative therapy. These results show a positive effect, especially in the area of vascular complications, with 74% of the patients with PEMF achieving positive results but only 28% in the comparative group achieving these results.
Lau et al.: ‘Effect of Low Frequency Low Intensity Electromagnetic Field on Diabetic Neuropathy,’ Dept. of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, USA. Scientific Report. – 76% of the patients achieved a definite reduction in symptoms compared to only 17% in the control group. The pain, numbness, itching and tingling sensations subsided.
R.A. Kuliev, R.F. Babaev: ‘PEMF combined with conventional treatment of suppurative Wounds in Diabetes Mellitus,’ Vestn Khir Im I I Grek, 148 (1), January 1992, pp. 33-36. – This study shows that PEMF can significantly accelerate healing in 72 diabetics with purulent wound infections. Results of this study indicated that treatment with pulsating electromagnetic field either alone or in combination with laser therapy exhibited healing effects with respect to peripheral nerve lesions and general wound healing relative to controls.
A.V. Alekseenko et al.: ‘Use of PEMF Combined with Galvanization and Tissue Electrophoresis in the Treatment of Trophic Ulcers,’ Klein Khir (7-8), 1993, pp. 31-34. – PEMF was investigated on 86 patients with skin ulcers. On the basis of the study results, the author recommends the use of PEMF for skin ulcers on the lower extremities.
Comorosan S, Vasilco R, Arghiropol M, Paslaru L, Jieanu V, Stelea Fundeni Hospital, Bucharest, Romania. Romania Journal of Physiol., 30 (1-2), 1993, pp. 41-45. The effect of PEMF on pressure ulcers has been studied on 20 elderly patients, hospitalized and bearing long-standing pressure ulcers. All were subjected to PEMF 1 -2 times daily parallel to conventional treatment. 5 control group patients underwent only conventional therapy, 5 others conventional + placebo PEMF treatment. After 2-weeks treatment, bulge healing rate was as follows: under PEMF 85% excellent and 15% very good healing; in the placebo group, 80% no improvement and 20% poor improvement; in the control group, 60% no improvement and 40% poor improvement. PEMF is strongly advised as a modern, uninvasive therapy of great efficiency.
Stiller, Pak, Shupack, Thaler, Kenny, Jondreau; NY University Medical Centre, British Journal of Dermatology, 127 (2), 1992. A randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled multi-centre study assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of PEMF in the healing of recalcitrant, predominantly venous leg ulcers. For 8 weeks a portable device was used at home for 3 h daily as an adjunct to a wound dressing. Wound surface area, ulcer depth and pain intensity were assessed. 50% of the ulcers in the active group healed or markedly improved vs. 0% in the placebo group. 0% of the active group worsened vs. 54% of the placebo group (P < 0.001). PEMF is a safe and effective adjunct to non-surgical therapy for leg ulcers.
Ieran, Zaffuto, Bagnacani, Annovi, Moratti, Cadossi; Medical Angiology, Reggio Emilia, Italy. Double blind study on the effect of PEMF on the healing of skin ulcers. 44 patients; one-half exposed to active stimulators and the remaining to dummy stimulators (control group). The PEMF therapy lasted 90 days. The success rate in the experimental group was significantly higher after 90 days (p less than 0.02) and in the follow-up period (p less than 0.005). The data suggest that the effect of PEMF lasts even when the stimulation is over. No ulcers worsened in the experimental group, while four worsened in the control group. It is concluded that stimulation with PEMF is a useful adjunctive therapy.
PMID: 2303961 PubMed
