Case Studies supporting PEMF benefits for Rhinosinusitis
Polarized Light Therapy Versus Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy on Chronic Rhinosinusitis
Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of polarized light therapy versus pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on chronic rhinosinusitis. Methods of evaluation (Measurement of the sinusitis symptom score (SSS) and the computerized tomography scan (CTS) for maxillary sinus).
Methods: Forty patients with ages ranging from 25 to 40 years and suffering from chronic maxillary rhinosinusitis. They were selected from the outpatient clinic of the Otorhinolaryngology (ENT) department at Cairo University Hospitals. They were divided into two groups. Group (A) composed of 20 patients received the Bioptron light therapy (BLT) (10 minutes session over each maxillary sinus day after day for three months). Group (B) received the pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMFT) (10 minutes session over each maxillary sinus day after day for three months). All patients received the traditional physical therapy in the form of facial infrared superficial heating for 3 minutes and cheek massage for another 3 minutes in addition to the same medical care and medications. The treatment program was conducted for 10 minutes, 3 times / week for three months. Measurements were conducted before starting the treatment as a first record and at the end of the third month of treatment as a second (final) record.
Results and conclusion: Results showed that application of both the BLT and PEMFT had valuable improving effects on chronic rhinosinusitis as evidenced by the highly significant decreases in sinusitis symptom score and the computerized tomography scan for maxillary sinus. But the PEMFT was more fruitful than the BLT in improving the chronic rhinosinusitis.
Case Study Reference Source:
1. Polarized Light Therapy Versus Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy on Chronic Rhinosinusitis
(Authors: Zakaria Mowafy Emam Mowafy, Mohamed Awad Amer, Ashraf Hassan Mohammed and Hatem Abd El Khalek)