The evidence grows, but more case studies and clinical trials are required. Much of the research around wound healing has focused on diabetic peripheral neuropathy, post-surgical and ulcer healing (see Reference List at bottom of article).
For Best Results: Anecdotal evidence and published research shows that best results are achieved when the magnet is placed directly over the wound, immediately or as soon as possbile after an incident. Obviously seek and follow standard medical care. If you want to use a static magnet, use it in addition to standard care and do not place it directly on an open wound.
DISCLAIMER: The safety and effectiveness of Q Magnets has not been established in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy or wound healing.
Clinical Trials Of Note
Eccles (2005) was able to show significant chronic leg ulcer wound healing using static magnets. While only 28 subjects, it was a double-blind placebo controlled trial and concluded…
This study shows that an appropriately applied static magnet device significantly promotes ulcer healing. Static magnets have also been shown to enhance wound healing. Such a simple treatment modality warrants further attention, including a larger controlled study. The implications are far-reaching in terms of saving community and practice nursing time, as well as for the potential to reduce the significant NHS expenditure on chronic ulcer care.
“In our group of study patients, magnetic field therapy was quite remarkable in both the prevention and treatment of these signs and symptoms and also in the alleviation of pain itself. The magnitude in the reduction of postoperative pain was quite significant, allowing for a decrease in the need for analgesic medication. In procedures in which significant ecchymoses or haematomas occur, one would normally expect manifestations such as these to take at least 2 to 3 weeks to resolve, whereas with the use of magnetic field therapy, they resolved in 48 to 72 hours, as is well demonstrated by the photographs.”
But not all clinical trials involving static magnetic fields are as promising. Even so, sometimes studies showing no benefit are useful for other reasons.
For instance, Cepeda (2007) wrote into the title of the paper that static magnetic therapy does not decrease opioid requirements after surgery. But such a conclusion is misleading. A more accurate conclusion would be – the type of magnets used in this way did not decrease opioid requirements after surgery. And any wonder, the method used goes against the principles of using magnetic therapy. Those in charge of the study, placed the magnets around the surgical wound and not over it. No wonder there was no effect. Imagine visiting the destist for a tooth filling, but getting a jab in the elbow! Would you conclude that the local anaesthetic didn’t work? Had large enough magnets been placed over the wound, the results of the study might have been completely different, consistent with other published studies.
Cepeda concluded that – bipolar static magnetic therapy lacks efficacy, and its use is not recommended for acute pain relief. But a more practical conclusion would be – if you want acute pain relief from bipolar static magnets, then don’t place them around the wound like we have.
Morris (2007) looked at the effects of a localised static magnetic field on oedema after trauma in mice. The most significant reduction in arteriolar enlargement was manifested in the smallest vessels. As an example at day 7, sham treated vessels revealed venular enlargement of 91%, whereas magnet treated only 41%. The evidence from such studies contradicts the common assumption that the healing effect of static magnetic fields is induced by increasing the blood flow to the injured area. In fact the evidence shows that in the case of trauma, a static magnetic field often causes vasoconstriction and hence reduces blood flow (Morris 2008). This could be one of the mechanisms at play for faster recovery from soft tissue injuries.
Furthermore, effective reduction of edema required the magnetic field to be applied immediately following the onset of inflammation; a field applied only before injection or at the time of maximal edema had no effect on the responses.
Other animal studies have shown significant healing effects by static magnetic fields on cartilage in rabbits (Jaberi 2011) and tendons in dogs (Aliabadi 2012). Histological samples by Aliabadi found significantly less inflammatory cells and significantly increased angiogenesis and collagen formation in the experimental dog group. Clinically, after 30 days, it was observed that the wound healing and physical activity of the experimental dogs was better than the control group in addition to being able to weight bear earlier.
A fascinating area ripe for further research.
Several mice studies have shown significant wound healing
Jind, Z (2017) compared wounds in 10 diabetic rats with treatment of a 230 mT static magnetic field, with another 10 acting as the control. The group of rats receiving the magnetic field treatment had a significantly increased rate of cutaneous wound healing, a speedier wound closure rate and dramatically higher wound tissue strength. While the mechanism for how static magnetic fields promote wound healing is not clear. Looking through the literature, Jing, Z proposed three main aspects…
That the applied magnetic field:
- Has certain anti-inflammatory effects
- Can promote vascular endothelial cell proliferation and promote the formation of the epidermal neovascularization.
- Can promote the formation of skin collagen to promote skin regeneration.
The findings of Jing, Z supported the results of Jing, D (2010) who found a clear link between accelerated healing rates for wounds in diabetic rats with the application of a 180 mT static magnetic field.
A Chinese study published in 2009 by Shen et al showed significant wound healing in mice of a 0.16 and 0.32 Tesla magnetic fields over the control group.
Larger clinical trials have been performed for diabetic neuropathy, Weintraub (2003), but the outcome measures looked at sensations such as pain, burning, numbness and tingling.
For such a simple, inexpensive and uncomplicated treatment, there’s more than enough evidence to warrant further research. We have developed placebos and are willing to support interested researchers.
Aliabadi, A., et al. (2012) “Evaluation of the effect of static magnetic field in treatment of tendon injuries in dog” Comp Clin Pathol: 2013, Nov;22(6):1057-1060. doi.
Ebrahimdamavandi, S et al (2019) “Application of a static magnetic field as a complementary aid to healing in an in vitro wound model” J Wound Care. 2019 Jan 2;28(1):40-52. PMID: 30625046
Jing, D et al (2010) “Effects of 180 mT static magnetic fields on diabetic wound healing in rats” Bioelectromagnetics: 2010, Vol 31(8):640-648. doi
Man, D., et al. (1999) “The influence of permanent magnetic field therapy on wound healing in suction lipectomy patients: a double-blind study” Plast Reconstr Surg Dec; 104(7):2261-6. PMID: 11149796
Rosen, AD (2003) “Mechanism of action of moderate-intensity static magnetic fields on biological systems” Cell Biochem Biophys. 2003;39(2):163-73 PMID: 14515021
Shen, JG., et al (2009) “Effect of Static Magnetic Field on deep wound healing of SD rats” Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2009 May;22(5):371-4. PMID: 19522401 (study in Chinese)
Weintraub, M. I., G. I. Wolfe, et al. (2003) “Static magnetic field therapy for symptomatic diabetic neuropathy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial” Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84(5): 736-746. PMID: 12736891; doi
Leave a Comment
Only registerd members can post a comment , Login / Register