Role of pulsed electromagnetic fields after joint replacements

Table 1 Compared to Placebo

Year	Ref.	Sur-gical proce-dure	Device and fre-quency	Peak ampli-tude inten-sity	Daily PEMF expo-sure (h/die)	Treat-ment Period	All	+	-	Mean Age (yr)	Follow up (mo)	Pain	Swell-ing	Mobi-lity	Quality of life
1993	Ken-nedy et al[48]	THA (cemented)	Stimatic 3000 75 Hz	NS	7,5	6 mo	37	19	18	68	6 (12, 18, 24, 36)	HOS ↑	NS	ROM ↑ HOS ↑	NS
1997	Pado-vani et al[46]	THA and revision	NS	NS	8	10 wk	129	89	40	66	6 (20 average)	PMA ↑	NS	PMA ↑	NS
2009	Dallari et al[50]	THA revision	Biostim 75 Hz	2 ± 0.2 mT	6	3 mo	30	15	15	68.6 ± 6.5	3	PMA ↑	NS	PMA ↑	NS
2012	Moretti et al[51]	TKA	I-ONE 75 Hz	1.5 mT	4	2 mo	30	15	15	60-85	1	VAS ↓	↓	NS	NS
											2	VAS ↓ KSS ↑	↓	KSS ↑	SF36 ↑
											6	VAS ↓ KSS ↑	NS	KSS ↑	SF36 ↑
											12	VAS ↓	NS	KSS ↑	SF36 ↑
2014	Adra-vanti et al[52]	TKA	I-ONE 75 Hz	1.5 ± 0.1 mT	4	2 mo	29	12	17	73.7	1	VAS ↓ KSS ↑	↓	KSS ↑	SF36 ↑
											2, 6	VAS ↓	NS	NS	NS
2019	La Verde et al[53]	RSA	I-ONE 75 Hz	1.5 mT	4	2 mo	50	25	25	60-75	1	VAS ↓ CMS ↑	NS	CMS ↑	NS
											2	VAS ↓ CMS ↑	NS	CMS ↑	NS
											3 (6)	VAS ↓ CMS ↑	NS	CMS ↑	NS

THA: Total hip arthroplasty; TKA: Total knee arthroplasty; RSA: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty; HOS: Harris hip score; ROM: Range of motion; PMA: Merle D’Aubigné-Postel hip score; VAS: Visual analog scale; KSS: Knee score society; SF36: Short form (36) health survey; CMS: Constant-Murley shoulder outcome score; NS: Not significant.