Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) provide a non-invasive, safe, and easy method to treat pain with respect to musculoskeletal diseases. The purpose of this systematic review was to describe the use of electromagnetic therapy in the rehabilitation field by investigating the efficacy in acute and chronic pain in the musculoskeletal disorders. A database search was conducted using the following resources: PubMed, Cochrane, PEDro, SCOPUS, and WoS. The following MESH terms were used: [Electromagnetic field AND/OR Rehabilitation], [Electromagnetic field AND/OR Pain], [Pulsed Magnetic field AND/OR Rehabilitation] and [Pulsed Magnetic field AND/OR Pain], [Pulsed Electromagnetic field AND/OR Rehabilitation] and [Pulsed Electromagnetic field AND/OR Pain], per the guidelines of the PRISMA statement. Articles published between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2018 were included as assessment of musculoskeletal pain conditions, randomized clinical trial including crossover and prospective design studies, full English text available, population age > 18 years; instead were excluded neurological randomized clinical trials, transcranial magnetic stimulation application, neuropathic pain, animal/in vitro studies, and articles without English abstract or English full text. Three independent investigators (AMC, NG, and LP) retrieved all the information. Twenty-one RTC (N=21) were considered for the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results showed as pulsed magnetic fields at low intensity and frequency (from 1 Hz up to 100 Hz) are commonly used with efficacy in resolving musculoskeletal pain. EMFs therapy is a well tolerated, effective with no negative side effects, which can be integrated with rehabilitation for the treatment of chronic and acute pain in musculoskeletal diseases, but further studies are needed to examine the use of more standardized protocols.

Objective: Capacitive and resistive electric transfer therapy (CARE) reduces pain and improves quality of life for many orthopaedic degenerative and inflammatory disorders. The research aim was to determine the effects of CARE on painful shoulder. The outcomes were pain reduction and recovery of shoulder function. Methods: A retrospective, observational case-control study was conducted. Participants were 46 patients (22 in the CARE group and 24 in the SHAM group). Clinical data, pain (visual analogic scale, VAS) and functional scale scores (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scale, and Constant–Murley Scale) were measured at baseline T0 (before treatment), T1 (after treatment) and follow-up T2 (2 months after the end of the treatment). Results: VAS scores in the CARE group improved from 7.23 ± 1.11 at baseline to 2.68 ± 0.99 at follow-up. The SHAM group did not experience any improvement. Similarly, functional scale scores improved in the CARE group compared with the SHAM group. Conclusion: Considering the small number of sessions needed, low cost and long-term benefits, CARE could be a useful therapeutic option for the conservative management of shoulder pain to restore pain-free and powerful movement to the shoulder joint.

Mesotherapy can be included as an ancillary treatment in the management of localized pain in rehabilitation, but there are no definitive treatment protocols for this approach. The purpose of this review was to examine new indications for more standard protocols of mesotherapy in rehabilitation. This systematic review was performed using the following resources: PubMed, Cochrane, PEDro, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The following algorithm was developed, based on the PICO acronym, to evaluate the effects of mesotherapy, with pain as the primary outcome (MESH terms): [mesotherapy AND pain], [mesotherapy AND musculoskeletal], [mesotherapy AND musculoskeletal disorder], [intradermal therapy AND pain], and [intradermal therapy AND musculoskeletal disorder]. Seven articles (N=7) satisfied the inclusion criteria and were considered in the review: two of them treated osteoarthritis of the knee (3 sessions) and pes anserine (9 sessions) emphasizing a good efficacy of mesotherapy. Five studies analyzed spine diseases (specifically, two was about chronic and nonspecific neck pain, two about acute low back pain and one about chronic spinal pain): the results of mesotherapy treatment are encouraging both for the resolution of acute and chronic musculoskeletal vertebral pain from one to five sessions. Mesotherapy showed a good effect to reduce acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain and, also, it is a well-tolerated treatment. Nonetheless future randomized controlled trials should be desirable for more uniform treatment protocols.

Telerehabilitation (TR) in chronic stroke patients has emerged as a promising modality to deliver rehabilitative treatment-at-home. The primary objective of our methodical clinical study was to determine the efficacy of a novel rehabilitative device in terms of recovery of function in daily activities and patient satisfaction and acceptance of the medical device provided. A 12-week physiotherapy program (balance exercises, upper and lower limb exercises with specific motor tasks using a biofeedback system and exergaming) was administered using the WeReha device. Twenty-five (N = 25) chronic stroke outpatients were enrolled, and the data of 22 patients was analyzed. Clinical data and functional parameters were collected by Berg Balance scale (BBS), Barthel Index (BI), Fugl-Meyer scale (FM), Modified Rankin scale (mRS), and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) questionnaire at baseline (T0), after treatment (T1), and at the 12-week follow-up (T2). Statistical tests were used to detect significant differences (P < .05), and Cohen’s (Co) value was calculated. BI scores improved significantly after treatment (P = .036; Co 0.776, medium), as well as BBS scores (P = .008; Co 1.260, high). The results in FM scale (P = .003) and mRS scores (P = .047) were significant post treatment. Follow-up scores remained stable across all scales, except the BI. The A and C sub-scales of the TAM correlated significantly to only a T2 to T1 difference for BI scores with P = .021 and P = .042. Currently, the WeReha program is not the conventional therapy for stroke patients, but it could be an integrative telerehabilitative resource for such patients as a conventional exercise program-at-home. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03964662.

Parkinson disease (PD) is a chronic neurodegenerative condition that leads to progressive disability. PD-related reductions in muscle strength have been reported to be associated with lower functional performance and balance confidence with an increased risk of falls. Progressive resistance training (PRT) improves strength, balance, and functional abilities. This umbrella review examines the efficacy of PRT regarding muscular strength in PD patients. The PubMed, PEDro, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 2009 to August 2019 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted in English. The populations included had diagnoses of PD and consisted of males and females aged >18 years old. Outcomes measured were muscle strength and enhanced physical function. Eight papers (six systematic reviews and meta-analyses and two systematic reviews) were considered relevant for qualitative analysis. In six of the eight studies, the reported severity of PD was mild to moderate. Each study analyzed how PRT elicited positive effects on muscle strength in PD patients, suggesting 10 weeks on average of progressive resistance exercises for the upper and lower limbs two to three times per week. However, none of the studies considered the postworkout follow-up, and there was no detailed evidence about the value of PRT in preventing falls. The possibility of PRT exercises being effective for increasing muscle strength in patients with PD, but without comorbidities or severe disability, is discussed. Overall, this review suggests that PRT should be included in rehabilitation programs for PD patients, in combination with balance training for postural control and other types of exercise, in order to preserve cardiorespiratory fitness and improve endurance in daily life activities.

Objective: To examine the pain-reducing effects of intra-articular oxygen–ozone (O₂O₃) injections and mechanical focal vibration (mFV) versus O₂O₃ injections alone in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Methods: Patients with chronic pain (>6 weeks) due to knee osteoarthritis (II–III on the Kellgren–Lawrence scale) were consecutively enrolled and divided into two groups: O₂O₃ (n = 25) and O₂O₃-mFV (n = 24). The visual analog scale (VAS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and Medical Research Council (MRC) Manual Muscle Testing scale were administered at baseline (before treatment), after 3 weeks of treatment, and 1 month after the end of treatment. Patients received three once-weekly intra-articular injections of O₂O₃ into the knee (20 mL O₃, 20 μg/mL). The O₂O₃-mFV group also underwent nine sessions of mFV (three sessions per week). Results: The VAS score, KOOS, and MRC score were significantly better in the O₂O₃-mFV than O₂O₃ group. The within-group analysis showed that all scores improved over time compared with baseline and were maintained even 1 month after treatment. No adverse events occurred. Conclusion: An integrated rehabilitation protocol involving O₂O₃ injections and mFV for 3 weeks reduces pain, increases autonomy in daily life activities, and strengthens the quadriceps femoris.