jnl:henry2008
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision | |||
|
jnl:henry2008 [2021/05/15 08:41] admin |
jnl:henry2008 [2021/05/15 08:50] (current) admin [Commentary] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| * model of secondary intention healing in rats | * model of secondary intention healing in rats | ||
| * how was size standardized? | * how was size standardized? | ||
| - | * Magnet applied 24x7 | + | |
| + | | ||
| + | * strength 23 gauss weak vs 400 etc ... | ||
| * blinding? | * blinding? | ||
| * Evidence for bone by Fukuda and Yasuda | * Evidence for bone by Fukuda and Yasuda | ||
| Line 20: | Line 22: | ||
| * Mechanisms | * Mechanisms | ||
| * vascular | * vascular | ||
| + | * Magnetic vs electromagnetic? | ||
| + | * Other studies | ||
| + | * Leaper: 400 gauss - no effect on wound healing, collagen content or tensile strength | ||
| + | * Patino: 200 gauss - faster healing in wounds with intermittent EMF fields | ||
| + | * Callaghan: similar to Patino | ||
| + | * Strauch: accelerated healing and higher tensile strength in rat wounds exposed to PEMF | ||
| + | * Tendons even less clear | ||
| + | |||
| + | > The data regarding magnet therapy for tendon healing are even more ambiguous. Greenbough applied pulsed electromagnetic fields to repaired flexor tendons in rabbits and found no benefit in terms of tensile strength or adhesion formation, | ||
| ====Source===== | ====Source===== | ||
jnl/henry2008.1621068118.txt.gz · Last modified: 2021/05/15 08:41 by admin
Page Tools
