Pulsed Signal Therapy Treatment of Chronic Pain Due to Traumatic Soft Tissue Injury

Introduction: Pulsed Signal Therapy (PST) is a form of therapy that involves directing a series of magnetic pulses through injured tissue. Each magnetic pulse induces a tiny electrical signal that stimulates cellular repair. PST has been used in the treatment of chronic pain associated with connective (bone, cartilage, tendon) tissue injury. A review of the current literature indicates that PST has a positive effect on bone and cartilage repair and leads to a decrease in chronic pain in patients with osteoarthritis. We examined the effect of PST in the treatment of joint associated soft tissue injury (traumatic, including motor vehicle accident). Objective: We conducted a retrospective study to establish the effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PST) in the treatment of chronic pain. We divided the PST patients into two groups: 1) Osteoarthritis (OA) Group N=45 This was a group of patients who were complaining of pain either in the spine or in a specific joint (knee, hip, ankle, shoulder). There was clearly documented evidence of OA with minimal soft tissue involvement. 2) Soft Tissue Injury (STI) Group N=35 This was a group of patients who were complaining of pain either in the spine or in a specific joint (knee/hip/shoulder) where no documented evidence of OA or bony change existed, but there was clinical evidence of soft tissue injury. Data was extracted from standard PST evaluation forms which included the medical histories and diagnoses of all PST patients. This data was used as criteria for inclusion or exclusion of the subjects in the above two groups. The basis for the PST treatment’s effectiveness was self reported symptom evaluations involving a five point visual analog scale (for pain intensity and frequency). This information was routinely obtained prior to the initial treatment, at the time of the final PST treatment (approximately 9 days later) and at a 6 week follow-up. Results: Using a matched pair t-test, significant changes from base-line scores were found within both groups. By change we mean a decline in the intensity and/or frequency of pain. The differences between preand post-treatment scores were highly significant at the 6 week follow-up (in both groups p<0.001 for both clinical variables). The extent of the improvement was also compared between the groups. A modified X (median) test showed no statistically significant difference between the means of these improvements in the two groups at the 6 week follow-up (p>0.1). Conclusions: 1) The extent of improvement (after PST) at the six week follow-up for patients with joint-associated soft tissue injury is in the same range as improvement experienced by patients with OA. 2) Both groups of patients experience a statistically significant improvement (compared to their pre-treatment state) at six week post PST treatment. This was not a controlled study and was based on data collected by the nurse/therapist on PST patients passing through the PST treatment protocol. All of the patients treated were complaining of chronic pain that had not responded to conventional therapy. The etiology of the pain was different in the two groups: the OA group included predominantly non-traumatic bony OA, while the cause of the pain in the soft tissue injury group was presumably trauma.