Static or dynamic low-frequency magnetic field? A review of literature

The therapeutic application of magnetic fi elds has experienced signifi cant growth in recent years. A small number of contraindications, as well as the lack of side effects makes both permanent magnets and alternating magnetic fi elds frequently used in physical therapy practice. In a signifi cant number of clinical studies the effi cacy of this physical factor as both an independent method, as well as supporting treatment programs has been confi rmed. In the last few years, a lot of emphasis is put on the fact that all therapeutic methods should have a scientifi c basis and their usage should meet the evidence based medicine criteria (EBM). Therefore, this work will focus on comparison of the use of permanent magnets and alternating low-frequency magnetic fi eld on the basis of the available literature, including mainly, a randomized double-blind trial. Analysis of the available literature on permanent magnet usage has shown clinical effi cacy in many diseases, however, placebo-controlled studies confi rm mainly the analgesic effect in patients after liposuction surgery, with diabetic neuropathy and with chronic pelvic pain. The use of the alternating low-frequency magnetic fi eld also leaves many questions to which scientists have still not found the answer. Randomized double-blind trial proved its therapeutic effi cacy in patients after knee arthroscopy, fractures and delayed bone unions, knee and cervical spine osteoarthritis as well as in case of leg ulceration. Alternating magnetic fi eld application has a wider therapeutic range in comparison to permanent magnets and its effectiveness is much better documented, both in clinical studies as well as randomized double-blind trials. Cite this article as: Głąb G., Dudek J., Klimek K., Skalska-Dulińska B., Chrabota U., Chojak-Fijałka K., Ridan T., Glodzik J. Static or dynamic low-frequency magnetic field? A review of literature. Med Rehabil 2016; 20(2): 31-35.

Abstract licence: CC BY-SA

29 more references, whose wording the paper’s licence keeps private.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.