October 23, 2006
BIOMAGNETICS IN THE TREATMENT OF HUMAN PAIN - PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE
By Robert R. Holcomb, M.D., Ph.D., Robert A. Parker, D.Sc., Melvie S. Harrison, R.N., BSN
ABSTRACT
A 2x2 randomized double-blind cross-over study was done to assess the efficacy of the Magna Bloc in reducing low back and knee pain in 54 patients at two centers. The Magna Bloc is a magnetic treatment device which contains a quadripolar permanent magnet system.
Pain was assessed using visual analog scale, ranging from zero (no pain) to 100 (maximal pain). Prior to any treatment the average pain rating was 52.9 + 23.3 points (mean + standard deviation). With treatment, the Magna BlocTM reduced pain by an average of 8.11 + 3.38 points more than did the placebo treatment (P= 0.030).
If confirmed, this would suggest that the Magna Bloc is effective in reducing chronic low back and knee pain. biomagnetic therapy, magnetics, pain-therapeutics, cross-over study.
INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The prevalence of chronic pain is not known. It is wide spread and is in many ways the single worst symptom for a patient to suffer. Data from a variety of sources suggests that annually in the United States and many other industrialized nations, between 25 and 30% of the population have chronic pain.1 In addition to the pain itself, it affects the patient’s mood, ability to function, to work, and personal and family life.
Since earliest recorded history, legions of physicians and other healing professionals have applied numerous treatments to prevent, alleviate, or cure the cause of pain. Often these attempts to ease pain and suffering were ineffectual. These treatments have included the use of magnetics.
Such devices were used as early as the 16th century, when William Gilbert (1544-1603) of Colchester used magnetics to treat Elizabeth I of England. Gilbert's classic book De Ma2net remains a landmark in the history of science because of its recognition of a difference between static electricity and magnetism.2 The use of magnetic devices is currently viewed, with skepticism. It seems likely that the Austrian physician Franz Anton Mesmer (1734-1815) is the main reason for this attitude.
The proponent of a theory of "animal magnetism," he soon was the subject of debate in every European capital. It is most important to note that the debate was at least as much about him personally as about his theories. His magnetic institute was investigated by a special commission of the French medical establishment. His work was ultimately debunked and Mesmer lost all credibility. Because of the cloud over Mesmer's work, other work in the therapeutic use of magnets has been ignored.
For example, in 1842 Stokes and Bell in their two volume treatise Lectures on the Theory and Practice of Physics report on experiments conducted at Dublin's Meath Hospital "with a view to ascertain the effects of a powerful magnet on the human body." They reported that the patients treated for pain demonstrated relief of pain and restoration of function. "The application of the magnet was followed by a very rapid subsidence of the morbid symptoms, and the patient got well in a few days".
Given the well accepted and widespread use of magnetic imaging techniques, it seems unarguable "that a magnet should act on the human body is neither extraordinary nor incredible." This paper presents results of a pilot study of a new magnetic device to reduce pain. MATERIALS/METHODS Study Design We conducted a randomized cross-over study to assess the efficacy of a unique static magnetic device, the Magna Bloc , to reduce pain.
Fifty-four patients suffering from chronic lower back pain or chronic knee pain were studied in two medical centers. After receiving informed consent, patients were randomly assigned to one of two treatment orders: the Magna Bloc in the initial period, with a similar control device without magnetic properties in the second period, or vice versa. Baseline measurements were obtained using both the Visual Analogue Scale 6-17 (VAS) and a verbal rating scale 6,7,10,13,14,18,19 (VRS) after which the device was placed in the appropriate location. In both scales, zero indicates no pain. In the VAS, the maximum score is 100, while in the VRS, the maximum score is 10. Measurements were repeated with the device in place at one, three, and twenty-four hours after treatment began.
The device was removed after twenty-four hours of treatment. Following a minimum seven day washout period, assessments were made before application of the second treatment and at one, three, and twenty-four hours after treatment was begun. Data on analgesic drug and mood affecting drug use was collected during both treatment periods. Although neither the physician nor the patient was informed which treatment was applied in each treatment period, the Magna Bloc is strongly magnetic. Thus, either the physician or the patient could have discovered which treatment was being applied in each period. In order to minimize this possibility, precautions were taken to protect the blind.
The study was approved by the relevant institutional review boards. Patient Characteristics Forty of the 54 patients (74.1%) were treated at one center. Forty-one of the 54 patients (75.9%) were treated for back pain. Four of these patients were also treated for knee pain. Thirty-three of the patients (61.1%) were female. Ages ranged from 25 to 86 years (median: 66; interquartile range: 54-73) and the duration of illness ranged from four months to 30 years (median: 5.5 years; interquartile range: 2-11 years). Description of Device The Magna Bloc is a quadripolar static magnetic field device (U.S. patent pending).
The device is constructed of a hypoallergenic, molded plastic casing which is applied to the surface of the skin over nerve fibers so that they lie in proximity to nerve bundles or ganglia. The device weighs approximately 30 grams and is approximately 3.5 cm in diameter. The magnetic energy measures 200 millitesla. Diagnostic Criteria Each patient entered the study only after a detailed work-up was completed by the investigator. The work-up included a thorough medical history, including previous diagnostic work-up(s) and treatment(s) for the condition, and a physical examination. A thorough pain history was elicited, including the distribution, quality, and temporal characteristics at the time of onset and during the interval between onset at the time the patient was being evaluated. Diagnosis was based on physical and radiographic findings.20 All patients received a lumbar-sacral spine series to demonstrate radiographic evidence of degenerative disc or joint disease. Patients with knee pain also received x-rays of the affected knee.
Laboratory tests included a CBC, electrolytes, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, arthritis profile, and a urinalysis. These studies were done to screen for secondary causes of osteoarthritis. Of the 41 back pain patients who were studied, 30 had pain primarily of musculoskeletal origin and 11 patients had pain primarily of neuropathic origin. Specific diagnoses included degenerative disc and joint disease, osteoarthritis and nerve entrapment secondary to post-surgical scarring.