A comparison between electrotherapy and magnetotherapy in the complex balneological care in lower back pains
Bohdanec study - extract

As it was proved that the UNIMAG device is suitable for complex spa treatment (see the Belohrad study) a question arose whether and how this device is comparable with other types of electrotherapy commonly used in spa treatment of vertebral algic syndromes.
The "magnet" (exposed) group was treated by PMF generated from the active output. The applicator used was the so called "blanket", i.e. the applicator with several coils in a textile cover. Program Nr. 1 was used in 18 cases, for program Nr. 2 was used in 24 cases. Each exposure lasted 30 minutes. Patients absolved 10 exposures in 10 days. Additionally, they underwent usual balneological treatment, i.e. peloid packs, water procedures, massages. No other electrotherapeutical procedures were applied. Blanket localization was along the spine again, as in the Belohrad study. The "electro" group patients absolved different electrotherapeutical procedures, e.g. diadynamic and/or interfering currents, microwave diathermy, galvanic currents, etc. The questionnaire used was the same as in the Belohrad study. Statistical analysis was performed using Epi-Info program, version 5.0 (WHO). As data were never distributed parametrically, p values from the non-parametrical tests were taken into account only. As critical value of probability p was chosen 0.05 again.
In this study criterion successful therapy was used, i.e. improvement by 2 or 3 points against the beginning value.
In the table 1 with exception of quality criterion no significant differences were found between electrotherapy and magnetotherapy.
In the table 2 no significant changes between the electrotherapy and magnetotherapy were found.
In the criterion successful treatment (table 3) better score is apparent in favour of magnetotherapy.
In the table 4 you can see that in this study positive changes were found even in some of objective criteria of spinal movement.

Conclusion
From the data obtained it may be concluded:

1. Magnetotherapy performed with the UNIMAG device has proved to be a suitable method for treatment of algic spinal syndromes.
2. It was proven that magnetotherapy with the UNIMAG device is at least equivalent to other electrotherapeutical procedures; in some parameters even better results were achieved.
3. Analyzing "successful therapy" it can be concluded, that magnetotherapy has stronger analgesic potential compared with 2 commonly used electrotherapeutical procedures. However, this fact must be considered carefully as magnetotherapy can be evaluated among the patients as a new and thus surely better approach than electrotherapy, so positive motivation must be taken into account.
4. Nevertheless, magnetotherapy has some advantages, mainly no contact with skin is necessary. This fact eliminates possible skin burns occurring in some patients.
5. It must be said that in one case (woman, lower-back pains) stronger pains occurred so magnetotherapy had to be interrupted in this single case. This is in a good agreement with observation in the ankylosing spondylitis patients described elsewhere.
6. We can postulate that according to our expirience and to the literary data, magnetotherapy is more suitable method in rehabilitation and spa therapy of locomotor apparatus diseases. Device UNIMAG tested by us is suitable for this purpose.