Search and development of new physiotherapeutic technologies of regenerative medicine for the treatment of patients with different diseases is an urgent task of modern medicine.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze scientific data on the effectiveness of the peripheral magnetic stimulation (PMS) application in patients with different diseases.
METHODS: An analysis of publications in databases of electronic resources (PEDro, PubMed, Embase, eLibrary, Cochrane Library) over the past 20 years was carried out, the results of PMS application in patients with different nosologies were presented.
RESULTS: The majority of the presented articles confirm the clinical effectiveness of PMS application mainly in patients with diseases of the nervous system, spine and genitourinary system.
CONCLUSIONS: Further research to confirm the effectiveness of the therapeutic impact of magnetic stimulation in patients with other nosologies is needed.
Поиск и разработка новых физиотерапевтических технологий восстановительной медицины для лечения пациентов с разными заболеваниями является актуальной задачей современной медицины.
UNASSIGNED: Анализ научных данных об эффективности применения периферической магнитной стимуляции (ПМС) у пациентов с разными заболеваниями.
UNASSIGNED: Был осуществлен анализ публикаций в базах данных электронных ресурсов (PEDro, PubMed, Embase, eLibrary, Кохрейновская библиотека) за последние 20 лет, в которых представлены результаты применения ПМС у пациентов с разными нозологиями.
UNASSIGNED: Большинством представленных работ подтверждена клиническая эффективность применения ПМС в основном у пациентов с заболеваниями нервной системы, позвоночника и мочеполовой системы.
UNASSIGNED: Необходимо продолжение научных исследований с целью подтверждения эффективности лечебного воздействия магнитной стимуляции у пациентов с другими нозологиями.

BACKGROUND: Dysphagia has been recognized by the World Health Organization as a medical disability. Improving mylohyoid muscle function plays an important role in pharyngeal dysphagia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the treatment of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), peripheral magnetic stimulation (PMS), and electrical stimulation (ES) for dysphagia.
METHODS: Forty healthy subjects were randomly divided into four groups: TMS+PMS, TMS, PMS, and ES. TMS stimulated the cortical representative area of the mylohyoid muscle and the PMS was directly stimulating the mylohyoid muscle, both of them at a frequency of 10 Hz for a total of 1,800 pulses. The intensity of ES was based on the subject\'s tolerance level, usually 2-5 mA. Functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and motor evoked potential (MEP) of the mylohyoid muscle were used to evaluate the immediate effects of stimulation on swallowing cortex excitability of healthy subjects before and after intervention.
RESULTS: The fNIRS results revealed notable activation across multiple channels in the four groups of healthy subjects both pre- and post- the intervention. Among these channels, the activation levels were most pronounced in the TMS+PMS group, followed by the TMS, PMS, and ES groups, respectively. Regarding the MEP results, post-intervention observations indicated a reduction in bilateral latency and an increase in bilateral amplitude in the TMS+PMS group. Additionally, the left amplitude exhibited an increase in the TMS group.
CONCLUSIONS: In fNIRS, all four stimulation methods significantly activated the swallowing cortex of healthy subjects, and the activation of TMS+PMS was the most obvious, followed by TMS, PMS, and ES.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive techniques such as central intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) and repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) have shown promise in improving motor function for patients with stroke. However, the combined efficacy of rPMS and central iTBS has not been extensively studied. This randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the synergistic effects of rPMS and central iTBS in patients with stroke.
METHODS: In this study, 28 stroke patients were randomly allocated to receive either 1200 pulses of real or sham rPMS on the radial nerve of the affected limb, followed by 1200 pulses of central iTBS on the ipsilesional hemisphere. The patients received the intervention for 10 sessions over two weeks. The primary outcome measures were the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) and the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). Secondary outcomes for activities and participation included the Functional Independence Measure-Selfcare (FIM-Selfcare) and the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS). The outcome measures were assessed before and after the intervention.
RESULTS: Both groups showed significant improvement in FMA-UE and FIM-Selfcare after the intervention (p < 0.05). Only the rPMS + iTBS group had significant improvement in ARAT-Grasp and SIS-Strength and activity of daily living (p < 0.05). However, the change scores in all outcome measures did not differ between two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the study\'s findings suggest that rPMS may have a synergistic effect on central iTBS to improve grasp function and participation. In conclusion, these findings highlight the potential of rPMS as an adjuvant therapy for central iTBS in stroke rehabilitation. Further large-scale studies are needed to fully explore the synergistic effects of rPMS on central iTBS.
BACKGROUND: This trial was registered under ClinicalTrials.gov ID No.NCT04265365, retrospectively registered, on February 11, 2020.

Aim: Chronic low back pain represents a significant societal problem leading to increased healthcare costs and quality of life. This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of non-invasive spinal electromagnetic simulation (SEMS) to treat nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP). Methods: A single-site prospective study was conducted to evaluate SEMS in reducing pain and improving disability. A total of 17 patients received SEMS two to three sessions a week. The Numeric Rating Scale and the Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire were used to assess pain and disability. Results: Participants receiving SEMS exhibited statistically significant reductions in pain and disability. Conclusion: Current results suggest that non-invasive SEMS can be an effective treatment in reducing pain and improving disability associated with CLBP.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a systematic review of the literature on the effects of peripheral magnetic stimulation (PMS) in the treatment of chronic peripheral neuropathic pain.
METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINHAL, Web of Science, and ProQuest was conducted from inception to July 2023 to identify studies of any design published in English language that enrolled adult patients (≥18 years) that received PMS for treatment of a chronic peripheral neuropathic pain disorder (pain > 3 months).
RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were identified which included 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), five case series, two case reports, and one non-randomized trial. PMS regimens varied across studies and ranged from 5 to 240 min per session over 1 day to 1 year of treatment. Results across included studies were mixed, with some studies suggesting benefits while others showing no significant differences. Of nine placebo-controlled RCTs, four reported statistically significant findings in favor of PMS use. In the meta-analysis, PMS significantly reduced pain scores compared to control within 0-1 month of use (mean difference -1.64 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale, 95% confidence interval -2.73 to -0.56, p = 0.003, I2 = 94%, 7 studies [264 participants], very low quality of evidence), but not at the 1-3 months and >3 months of PMS use (very low and low quality of evidence, respectively). Minimal to no adverse effects were reported with PMS use.
CONCLUSIONS: There is limited and low-quality evidence to make definitive recommendations on PMS usage, however, the available data is encouraging, especially for short-term applications of this novel modality. Large high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to establish definitive efficacy and safety effects of PMS.

Spasticity, characterized by a velocity-dependent increase in muscle tone and exaggerated reflexes, is a common complication in individuals with upper motor neuron syndrome, such as stroke survivors. Sensitization, the heightened responsiveness of the nervous system to sensory stimuli, has emerged as a potential cause of spasticity. This perspective article explores three emerging treatments targeting sensitization. Recent studies have investigated novel treatment modalities for spasticity, including Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy (ESWT), repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS), and needling. ESWT has shown promising results in reducing spasticity in both the upper and lower extremities, potentially through mechanisms such as nitric oxide production, rheological property changes, and neuromuscular transmission dysfunction. rPMS offers a non-invasive approach that may reduce spasticity by increasing sensory input, enhancing cortical activation, and exerting tissue-softening effects. Needling has also demonstrated positive effects on spasticity reduction. The high heterogeneity observed indicates the need for more rigorous research to confirm these findings. Recently, mechanical needling and sterile water injection invented by the author is also promising for reducing spasticity through removing sensitization. In conclusion, the emerging treatment options discussed in this perspective article provide promising avenues for addressing sensitization in spasticity and improving motor function. However, further research is needed to validate their findings, optimize treatment protocols, and investigate their long-term effects on motor recovery and overall quality of life in individuals with spasticity.

Stroke is a central nervous system disease that causes structural lesions and functional impairments of the brain, resulting in varying types, and degrees of dysfunction. The bimodal balance-recovery model (interhemispheric competition model and vicariation model) has been proposed as the mechanism of functional recovery after a stroke. We analyzed how combinations of motor observation treatment approaches, transcranial electrical (TES) or magnetic (TMS) stimulation and peripheral electrical (PES) or magnetic (PMS) stimulation techniques can be taken as accessorial physical therapy methods on symptom reduction of stroke patients. We suggest that top-down and bottom-up stimulation techniques combined with action observation treatment synergistically might develop into valuable physical therapy strategies in neurorehabilitation after stroke. We explored how TES or TMS intervention over the contralesional hemisphere or the lesioned hemisphere combined with PES or PMS of the paretic limbs during motor observation followed by action execution have super-additive effects to potentiate the effect of conventional treatment in stroke patients. The proposed paradigm could be an innovative and adjunctive approach to potentiate the effect of conventional rehabilitation treatment, especially for those patients with severe motor deficits.

Peripheral magnetic stimulation (PMS) is a potentially promising modality to help manage postoperative pain. We systematically reviewed the effect of PMS on acute and chronic postoperative pain. MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, ProQuest Dissertations, and clinical trials.gov were searched from inception until May 2021. We included studies of any study design that included patients ≥18 years of age undergoing any type of surgery that administered PMS within the perioperative period and evaluated postoperative pain. Seventeen randomized controlled trials and 1 nonrandomized clinical trial were included into the review. Thirteen out of the 18 studies found a positive effect with PMS on postoperative pain scores. In our meta-analysis, peripheral magnetic stimulation was more efficacious than sham or no intervention within the first 7 postoperative days (mean difference [MD] -1.64 on a 0 to 10 numerical rating score, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.08 to -1.20, I2 = 77%, 6 studies, 231 patients). This was also true at 1 and 2 months after surgery (MD -1.82, 95% CI -2.48 to -1.17, I2 = 0%, 3 studies, 104 patients; and MD -1.96, 95% CI -3.67 to -.26, I2 = 84%, 3 studies, 104 patients, respectively). A difference was not seen with persistent pain at 6 and 12-months after surgery, acute postoperative opioid consumption, or adverse events between groups. Results are limited by heterogeneity and generally low-quality studies, as well as low or very low quality of evidence. High-quality and adequately blinded trials are needed to definitively confirm the benefits of peripheral magnetic stimulation administered in the perioperative period. PERSPECTIVE: This review evaluates the efficacy and safety of PMS on postoperative pain. The results help elucidate PMS\' role in postoperative pain management and identify gaps where more research is required.

Paired corticomotoneuronal stimulation (or electrical PCMS: ePCMS) is the repetitive pairing of an electrical stimulus to a nerve with a transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary motor cortex (TMS-of-M1) to noninvasively influence spinal plasticity. We compared ePCMS with the new painless PCMS protocol pairing a magnetic stimulus to the nerve with TMS-of-M1 (mPCMS) in the preactivated tibial anterior muscle (TA). Sixteen healthy adults participated in two sessions (mPCMS, ePCMS), each with 180 pairs of [low-intensity TMS-of-M1 + nerve stimulation] at 0.2 Hz. TA motor-evoked potentials (MEP) to single-pulse TMS at pre-PCMS, immediately and 30 min after PCMS, were cluster-analyzed to discriminate responders and non-responders. Paired-pulse TMS-of-M1 and F-waves were also tested and BDNF polymorphism influence was explored. Both PCMS protocols significantly increased MEP amplitudes (n = 9 responders each), but the time-course differed with mPCMS inducing larger MEP increase over time. The number of BDNF-methionine carriers tended to be larger than Val66Val in mPCMS and the reverse in ePCMS, thus warranting further investigations. The MEP changes of the preactivated TA likely occurred at the pre-motoneuronal level and larger mPCMS after-effects over time may be related to the afferents recruited. mPCMS seems relevant to be tested in future studies as a painless noninvasive approach to induce sustained pre-motoneuronal plasticity in spinal cord injury.

BACKGROUND: Facial paralysis (FP) is a common symptom after stroke, which influences the quality of life and prognosis of patients. Recently, peripheral magnetic stimulation (PMS) shows potential effects on peripheral and central nervous system damage. However, the effect of PMS on FP after stroke is still unclear.
METHODS: In this study, we applied PMS on the facial nerve of nine stroke patients with FP. At the same time, laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI) was used to explore the facial skin blood flow (SkBF) in 19 healthy subjects and nine stroke patients with FP before and after the PMS intervention. The whole face was divided into 14 regions to compare the SkBF in different sub-areas.
RESULTS: In baseline SkBF, we found that there were no significant differences in the SkBF between the left and right faces in the healthy subjects. However, there was a significant difference in the SkBF between the affected and unaffected faces in Region 7 (Chin area, p = 0.046). In the following five minutes after the PMS intervention (Pre_0-5 min), the SkBF increased in Region 5 (p = 0.014) and Region 7 (p = 0.046) and there was an increasing trend in Region 3 (p = 0.088) and Region 6 (p = 0.069). In the five to ten minutes after the intervention (Post_6-10 min), the SkBF increased in Region 5 (p = 0.009), Region 6 (p = 0.021) and Region 7 (p = 0.023) and there was an increasing trend in Region 3 (p = 0.080) and left and right whole face (p = 0.051).
CONCLUSIONS: These pilot results indicate that PMS intervention could increase facial skin blood flow in stroke patients with FP. A further randomized controlled trial can be performed to explore its possible clinical efficacy.