Why the study?
Does pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation improve bone mineral density at the knee in males with chronic spinal cord injury?
Does pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation improve bone mineral density at the knee in males with chronic spinal cord injury?
Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation transiently increased bone mineral density at 3 months in osteoporotic knees of spinal cord injury patients, but the effect was not sustained at 6 or 12 months.
Transient BMD gains in SCI do not support clinical adoption; leaves open whether refined PEMF protocols yield sustained effects in trials.
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on osteoporotic bone at the knee in individuals with chronic spinal injury. The study consisted of 6 males with complete spinal cord injury at a minimum of 2 years duration. Bone mineral density (BMD) was obtained at both knees at initiation, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. In each case, 1 knee was stimulated using The Bone Growth Stimulator Model 3005 from American Medical Electronics, Incorporated and the opposite knee served as the control. Stimulation ceased at 6 months. At 3 months BMD increased in the stimulated knees 5.1% and declined in the control knees 6.6% (p < .05 and p < .02, respectively). By 6 months the BMD returned to near baseline values and at 12 months both knees had lost bone at a similar rate to 2.4% below baseline for the stimulated knee and 3.6% below baseline for the control. There were larger effects closer to the site of stimulation. While the stimulation appeared useful in retarding osteoporosis, the unexpected exaggerated decline in the control knees and reversal at 6 months suggests underlying mechanisms are more complex than originally anticipated. The authors believe a local as well as a systemic response was created.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Garland et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: