Content uploaded by Tim Watson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tim Watson on Jan 23, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Bioelectricity and microcurrent therapy for
tissue healing – a narrative review
Leon Poltawski and Tim Watson
School of Health and Emergency Professions, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, AL10 9AB, UK
Background: Microcurrent therapy (MCT) uses electric currents similar to those produced by the
body during tissue healing. It may be a particularly beneficial where endogenous healing has failed.
Aim: To review evidence regarding microcurrent in tissue healing and the application of MCT.
Methods: All peer-reviewed studies concerning microcurrent and MCT were sought, and
representative literature was synthesised to indicate the scope and weight of current evidence.
Results: Microcurrent appears to play a significant role in the healing process, and MCT can
promote healing in a variety of bone and skin lesions. The evidence for other tissues is
encouraging but presently scant.
Conclusion: MCT may have unrealised potential in the treatment of dysfunctional tissue healing
and deserves greater attention by researchers and clinicians.
Keywords: bioelectricity, electrotherapy, microcurrent, tissue healing
Introduction
Contemporary accounts of tissue healing are typically
expressed entirely in terms of biochemistry.
1–4
The
actions of substances such as cytokines and growth
factors are said to initiate and mediate the various
stages of inflammation and repair that normally follow
tissue damage.
5
Yet evidence which has accumulated
over many decades suggests that a full description of
the physiology of healing must also include the role of
bioelectricity – accumulations and flows of charge that
are generated endogenously, within the body. The
importance of bioelectricity in functions such as
nervous system signalling and muscle contraction has
been long appreciated, but it is also involved in many
other physiological processes. These include the
development, adaptation, repair and regeneration of
tissues throughout the body.
6–9
Recognition of bioelectricity’s role in tissue healing
provides a rationale for the therapeutic application of
electrical stimulation, particularly in cases where natural
repair processes have broken down. Microcurrent
therapy (MCT) is an example of this. Uniquely amongst
the various electrotherapeutic modalities, MCT involves
application of voltages and currents of similar magni-
tude to those generated endogenously during normal
tissue healing. Althoughrelativelyunknownand
currently little used by physiotherapists outside North
America, MCT has been shown to be of benefit in
several types of tissue healing and it may be effective in
others. It appears to stimulate healing generally, and not
just one element of the process; it has very few side
effects; and it may offer an effective treatment for
musculoskeletal disorders such as chronic tendinopa-
thies where normal healing has become dysfunctional.
This paper outlines current thinking on the role of
bioelectricity in healing, presents empirical evidence
regarding MCT for the promotion of tissue healing,
and suggests implications for both clinical and
research communities. The majority of published
research in this area is concerned with bone and skin
lesions, but patterns and mechanisms of healing in
these tissues share features with those seen in damaged
tendons, ligaments and other musculoskeletal struc-
tures.
10–12
Therefore the evidence presented here is of
relevance to researchers and clinicians concerned with
a variety of musculoskeletal disorders.
Bioelectricity and healing
The human body, in common with other living
organisms, expends a significant proportion of its
104
!W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2009
DOI 10.1179/174328809X405973 Physical Therapy Reviews 2009 VOL 14 NO 2
energy generating electricity.
13
In fact the body is a
conglomeration of electric batteries. Every cell main-
tains a voltage across its external membrane, and
across the membranes of its organelles.
14,15
This is
achieved by the active transport of ions, particularly
sodium and potassium, against their concentration
gradients, establishing charge separations that con-
stitute a potential difference or voltage across the
membrane.
16
Aggregates of cells also set up voltages
across various tissue layers, including cutaneous and
corneal epithelium, vascular and intestinal walls, and
the cortex and periosteum of long bones.
14,15,17–21
These voltages are of the order of millivolts (mV) in
magnitude, and where there is a conducting pathway
they cause the movement of ions within tissue,
constituting a bioelectric current, typically in the
microamp (mA) range.
14
At the cellular level, bioelectricity is involved in the
transport through the membrane of ions that can
influence cell behaviour. Even in non-excitable cells
there are voltage-gated channels controlling the
passage of such ions.
22
At the tissue level, endogen-
ous fields are intrinsic to a number of metabolic
processes, including development, adaptation and
repair. They can influence cell morphology and the
growth of body parts during foetal develop-
ment;
13,23,24
they are generated when connective
tissues such as bone and tendon are stressed, and
can influence adaptive modifications in the extra-
cellular matrix;
25–28
and when tissue is damaged they
set up currents that appear to drive elements of the
healing response.
17,29–32
The currents diminish as
healing progresses, with normal values being re-
established once healing is complete.
17,23,32,33
That bioelectricity is intrinsic to such processes –
rather than a mere by-product – has been established
by a wealth of experimental evidence. Perhaps the
most convincing is that setting up a voltage in
opposition to the endogenous one, or blocking the
passage of biocurrents, can slow or abolish the
healing response in a variety of tissue types.
15,33–35
In vitro studies have also demonstrated that applica-
tion of electric fields and currents similar to those
generated within the body can cause significant
changes in the structure and behaviour of cells.
Application of microcurrent to tissue has been found
to boost the number of organelles responsible for
cellular activities, and to increase concentrations of
ATP, the cellular currency of energy.
36,37
These
changes can facilitate cell proliferation and protein
synthesis, which have been found to increase when
microcurrents are applied to the constituent cells of
skin,
38,39
tendons,
40,41
cartilage
42
and bone.
43
Such
effects are highly parameter-dependent, however.
Larger currents or alternating microcurrents at
certain frequencies have been found to reduce cell
proliferation or induce cell death in some cases.
44,45
Ion channels in cell membranes may migrate under
the influence of an applied field, resulting in
cytoskeletal modifications, including creation of
membrane projections that enable cell movement.
24,37
Directed movement of cells within an electric field –
known as galvanotaxis – has been observed with
many cell types. These include leukocytes and
macrophages, which are key mediators in different
stages of healing,
46
as well as a variety of cells
responsible for tissue formation, such as keratino-
cytes, vascular endothelial cells, osteoblasts, osteo-
clasts, chondrocytes and fibroblasts.
24,37,47,48
Different cell types have been found to move in
opposite directions, and reversing the field reverses
the direction of migration.
37,49
At the tissue level, unidirectional fields and direct
currents (DC) can promote vascular permeability
50
angiogenesis
51
and neural sprouting
31,52
as well as
formation of new skin, bone, cartilage and soft
tissue.
39,53–57
Such findings are significant because
they suggest that applying fields and currents with
similar parameters to bioelectricity may be used to
stimulate tissue healing. Cell migration, proliferation
and synthesis of new tissue are all essential compo-
nents of the healing process.
1,46
If applied electricity
can mimic endogenous electrical signals that guide
cellular behaviour, then a therapeutic option may be
available where natural healing has failed.
Therapeutic microcurrent
There are various forms of electrotherapy that may
deliver average currents in the microamp range, such
as high voltage pulsed current, and high frequency
alternating currents induced by electric or electro-
magnetic fields, e.g. pulsed short-wave or non-
thermal pulsed radio frequency. However, the wave-
forms produced by these modalities are quite unlike
those of any observed endogenous currents and
voltages, which tend to be unidirectional, and of
constant or slowly varying amplitude.
14
Since MCT is
predicated on the basis that it mimics endogenous
bioelectric signals, the main focus here is on those
studies that use electrical stimulation with similar
parameters. A good deal of evidence regarding the
effects of microcurrent on tissue healing has accu-
mulated over recent decades. Where clinical trials
have been reported, they are presented, though
Poltawski and Watson Bioelectricity and microcurrent therapy for tissue healing
Physical Therapy Reviews 2009 VOL 14 NO 2105
reference to in vitro and animal studies is also made
where clinical trial data is scarce.
Bone
Electrical stimulation was used for promotion of
bone healing in the early nineteenth century. English
physician John Birch applied DC to the ends of a 13
month-old non-uniting tibial fracture via percuta-
neous electrodes.
58
After 6 weeks of treatment the
fracture had consolidated. Other historical examples
of electricity being used in this way are recorded, but
the therapy later fell into disuse. It was revived in the
mid-twentieth century, when a scientific rationale for
its application was developed on the basis of in vitro
and animal experiments. In the 1950s several workers
found that application of microcurrent to bone could
initiate osteogenesis in both normal and damaged
bone.
59,60
Later studies investigated the effects of
parameters such as current size, polarity and elec-
trode material and configuration on the process.
61–63
New bone could be laid down by DCs of about
20 mA, with maximal formation occurring at the
cathode (the negative electrode). Currents above
30 mA could cause bone resorption or osteonecro-
sis.
55,62,64
Such data provide a persuasive rationale
for the use of microcurrent to stimulate bone healing,
and subsequent in vivo animal studies suggested that
it might be beneficial for several clinical applications,
including fresh fractures, delayed and non-uniting
fractures, osteotomies and spinal fusions, although
parameter choices varied considerably and not all
applications were successful.
65–70
Reviews of such
studies are available.
71,72
Clinical studies
The earliest modern application of MCT for human
bone healing was to non-uniting fractures. In 1971,
Friedenberg and colleagues published a case study in
which a malleolar fracture, which had failed to unite
after more than a year, was healed within 9 weeks by
treatment with DC of 10 mA via a cathode inserted
into the fracture site.
73
Several larger studies fol-
lowed, in which MCT was applied to delayed or non-
uniting fractures. Delayed unions are those that take
longer than would be expected for the particular
fracture site and patient characteristics; non-union is
said to occur when healing stops and union is not
achieved after 6–8 months.
74
In 1977 Brighton and
colleagues reported a study involving treatment of 57
lower and upper limb non-unions with 10–20 mA,
delivered to the site by 2–4 cathodes for 12 weeks,
followed by 12 weeks of continued immobilisation.
75
Of those treated, 76% went on to develop full union,
with most failures accounted for by insufficient
current delivery or breakage of electrodes. In a
follow-up multi-centre study 84% of 178 non-unions
treated using a similar protocol achieved union.
Complications were reported as minor.
76
Another
multicentre trial in a different country used the same
current but delivered through a single cathode to 84
patients with either delayed or non-union,
77
mostly of
the tibia or femur. Time to achieve union varied
between 12 and 36 weeks. A 10-year follow-up
assessment of 37 of the patients enrolled in this trial
found normal bone remodelling, continued union
and no side effects of the electrodes that were left in
situ (the remaining participants were unavailable for
review).
78
Microcurrent pulsed at 20 Hz has also been
evaluated and found beneficial with a mixed caseload
of non-uniting fractures, congenital pseudarthroses,
osteotomies and leg-lengthening procedures.
79
DC of
pulse amplitude 20–25 mA and duration 30 ms was
applied via a cathode wrapped around or threaded
through the fracture site and with the anode
implanted in the medulla (as opposed to the
subcutaneous positioning used in other trials).
Treatment times varied according to case until union
was observed radiographically, and varied between 2
and 12 months. The overall success rate was 87%
although adjunctive treatments and individual char-
acteristics varied considerably. Authors of one of the
earlier studies
75
reported that they found that
constant DC always produced superior outcomes to
pulsed current, although they presented no relevant
parameter or outcome data.
Some of these studies are rather dated and do not
meet contemporary reporting standards for clinical
trials. The absence of a formal control group is
justified by the fact that usually no bone healing had
been observed for months, and spontaneous recovery
in such cases is rare, so participants were considered
to be acting as their own controls.
76
However placebo
and time effects cannot be ruled out when evaluating
their evidence. The lack of more recent studies may
reflect the greater popularity of less invasive electro-
therapies, although MCT appears superior in selected
cases. A comparison with capacitative and inductive
coupling as adjuncts for bone graft treatment of tibial
non-unions reported in 1995 found that microcurrent
was more effective with high risk cases such as those
with atrophic non-unions or previous graft failure.
80
Where there were no identified risk factors, none of
the electrotherapies was superior to graft alone.
Poltawski and Watson Bioelectricity and microcurrent therapy for tissue healing
106 Physical Therapy Reviews 2009 VOL 14 NO 2
Although non-invasive forms of electrotherapy
have superseded MCT for some applications, it has
continued to be employed with lumbar spinal fusions,
where there is evidence of its superiority over other
types of electrical stimulation. Such fusions are used
in cases of disabling joint instability or disc degen-
eration, and normally involve a bone graft and
instrumentation. Failure rates can be as high as
40%,
81
but may be reduced substantially by the
application of MCT. After its first clinical use was
reported in 1974,
82
DC application, typically of
20 mA applied by a single or multiple cathodes to
the fusion site for 5–6 months, was subject to
evaluation in several trials.
83–85
In these studies
patients receiving MCT in addition to standard
treatment had successful fusion rates of 81–96%,
compared to 54–81% for those on standard treatment
alone, as assessed by radiographic and clinical
criteria. Results for methodologically sound con-
trolled trials consistently indicate statistically signifi-
cant outcomes in favour of DC MCT compared
with control groups.
86
It is particularly effective
when used in high risk cases such as those with
previous failed fusions, multiple level surgery,
smokers and those with co-morbidities such as
diabetes and obesity,
87–89
and has a stronger favour-
able evidence base than either capacitative or
inductive coupling, particularly for posterior
fusions.
90
An economic evaluation of the therapy as
an adjunct in spinal fusion surgery
91
also found that
it provided significant cost savings and shorter in-
patient stays.
Smaller studies have suggested that DC MCT may
be useful in other bone lesions, including high risk
ankle and hind-foot fusions
92,93
and selected con-
genital pseudarthoses.
94–97
Their findings have yet to
be confirmed by larger trials. Two controlled trials
have suggested that MCT may also accelerate healing
in fresh fractures,
98,99
though this application is still
largely unexplored.
Systematic reviews of trials have concluded that the
best evidence for promotion of bone healing by
application of small electric currents is in cases of
non-uniting lower limb fractures and spinal
fusions.
71,86,88,90,100–105
Meta-analyses have been wea-
kened by pooling data from trials using heteroge-
neous groups and treatment parameters, and even
different forms of electrotherapy.
86,101
Nevertheless,
consideration of the evidence regarding MCT in
particular suggests that its application, usually for
several months, may enhance tissue healing in a
variety of bone lesions.
Skin
Since it is easily accessible for study, skin is the tissue
in which the bioelectrics of healing have perhaps been
subject to the greatest scrutiny. Reviews providing
accounts of in vitro and animal studies are avail-
able,
53,72,106
and only the human and clinical studies
are dealt with here. Several authors have identified
the seventeenth-century use of charged gold leaf for
resolution of smallpox lesions as the first example of
electrotherapy for human skin healing.
53,107,108
In
fact there is no mention of electric charge in the cited
source.
109
Charged gold leaf, which would deliver a
small and diminishing current to adjacent tissue, was
used successfully in the 1960s to assist healing in
surgical vascular wounds and cutaneous ulcers.
110,111
However, charging appears to have been considered
an aid to adherence of the leaf rather than an agent of
healing in itself. Nevertheless, more recent studies
have consistently concluded that electrical stimula-
tion, including MCT, can indeed promote healing in
various types of human skin wounds, particularly
ulcers. The first of these was reported in 1968 by
Assimacopoulos who, following successful use of
microcurrent to accelerate healing of surgical scars on
rabbit ears,
112
tried the treatment with recalcitrant leg
ulcers in three patients.
113
DC between 50 and
100 mA was delivered continuously for several weeks
via a stainless steel mesh cathode soaked in saline and
placed on a moist dressing on the wound, and an
anode affixed to the thigh or abdominal wall. All the
wounds healed within six weeks and no side effects of
treatment were reported.
In a larger study, Wolcott and colleagues used
MCT with 83 ulcers of varying aetiology in 67
patients.
114
A measure of control was introduced by
assessing but not treating additional ulcers in eight of
the sample patients. ‘About three quarters’ of the
patients had failed to respond to other conservative
treatment. DC between 400 and 800 mA was applied
via a copper mesh cathode over the wound and anode
on skin 15 cm proximal. The current level was
determined individually, adjusted so as to avoid
bleeding or excess exudate production, and was
delivered for 2 hours, thrice daily for several weeks,
in some cases months, until healing occurred (a full
breakdown of durations was not given). The protocol
involved a polarity-swapping element, based on early
experience that healing would often plateau after a
few days and could be restarted by reversing the
polarity of the electrodes. Over a mean treatment
time of 7.7 weeks, there was a mean volume
reduction in treated wounds of 82%, with a mean
Poltawski and Watson Bioelectricity and microcurrent therapy for tissue healing
Physical Therapy Reviews 2009 VOL 14 NO 2107
healing rate of 13.4% per week. Thirty-four lesions
(40%) healed completely. These figures mask a wide
range of individual and group responses, with para-
plegic patients (presumably mostly spinal cord
injured) consistently responding less well to treat-
ment. Of the eight patients (mostly paraplegic) with
microcurrent-treated and control ulcers, mean
volume reductions were 93% (range 75–100%) in the
MCT ulcers and 33% (range 0–75%) in the control
ulcers. The study evidence is weakened by the lack of
information on duration of ulcers, the inclusion of
patients for whom standard treatments had not been
tried, early termination of electrotherapy protocol in
more than half of the sample, and the small size of the
control group. Even so, it began to build the case that
MCT could assist healing in a variety of skin ulcer
types.
MCT using similar protocols – and various
alternatives – were later used in several larger
controlled trials by other groups.
115–121
These
involved several skin ulcer types including those due
to venous and arterial insufficiency, secondary to
diabetes, and pressure ulcers following spinal cord
injury. MCT typically involved currents of several
hundred microamps, often continuous DC but some-
times pulsed or low frequency biphasic. Where
currents were unidirectional, the anode was normally
placed on the wound, within a moist dressing.
Treatment times were usually 1 hour or more each
day for several weeks or even months. Healing was
measured in terms of percentage reductions in wound
surface area or volume over a defined time, and in the
majority of cases ulcers receiving MCT as an adjunct
to conventional treatment healed more quickly and
completely than those receiving conventional treat-
ment alone.
More recent studies have suggested that MCT may
also be effective with other types of skin wounds. In a
trial involving 30 patients, microcurrent was found
more effective than conventional treatment in pro-
moting skin graft healing following thermal injury.
122
A DC current between 50 and 100 mA was applied
continuously for several days via an anodal dressing
on the wound. Stimulated wounds closed in an
average 4.6 days compared to 7.2 days for controls.
A series of case studies involving application of
monophasic microcurrent to pressure sores, an
infected venous ulcer and a recalcitrant pilonidal
sinus also found evidence of benefit in terms of
accelerated healing and reduction of bacterial
load.
123
The novelty of these cases was that the
current (of unspecified magnitude) was provided by a
proprietary dressing with an integrated circuit,
battery and electrodes.
Reviews of electrical stimulation for skin wound
healing have consistently concluded that the weight
of evidence is in its favour when it is used as an
adjunctive treatment with other conservative man-
agement strategies.
53,86,108,124–128
In the USA, gov-
ernment and private medical insurers pay for its use
with recalcitrant ulcers due to pressure, arterial or
venous insufficiency and diabetes.
127
However, most
reviews have not considered the different modalities
separately, because the numbers do not justify
subgroup analysis. Where MCT studies are consid-
ered alone, the range of protocols employed means
that optimum parameters cannot yet be identified.
Both continuous and pulsed, monophasic and bipha-
sic, anodal and cathodal stimulation seem capable of
promoting healing. The parameters that are sup-
ported by a majority of studies are current size (in the
hundreds of microamps), treatment time (typically
several weeks, for hours rather than minutes each
day) and application directly to the wound bed.
Monophasic or ‘unbalanced’ currents (those with a
net delivery of charge) are more common in the
studies indicating MCT effectiveness.
Tendons and other tissues
Data from in vitro and animal studies, and a small
number of human trials, suggest that there may be
unexplored potential for microcurrent treatment of
lesions in soft connective tissue, particularly tendons
and ligaments. In these structures, the extracellular
matrix (ECM) is laid down by phenotypes of the
fibroblast, a cell that has been shown to migrate,
proliferate and increase synthesis of ECM proteins
under the influence of applied electric fields and
currents.
40,41,129–132
Tissue and animal studies
By using explants, whole tissue samples taken from
animals and maintained in laboratory cultures,
investigators have been able to conduct well-
controlled studies of the effects of applied current
on tendons and ligaments. Nessler and Mass reported
using these methods in 1987, when they applied
continuous 7 mA current for up to 6 weeks to
surgically transected and sutured rabbit flexor tendon
explants.
133
Bioassay and histological analysis
showed greater and more rapid fibroblast prolifera-
tion, protein synthesis and collagen deposition
consistent with normal tendon healing in stimulated
explants compared to their controls. These changes
Poltawski and Watson Bioelectricity and microcurrent therapy for tissue healing
108 Physical Therapy Reviews 2009 VOL 14 NO 2
were observed distant from the cathode, which had
been placed into the lesion, and the authors speculated
that the current density was too great close to the
cathode. Soon after, Cleary and colleagues investi-
gated the influence of various microcurrent parameters
by applying pulsed monophasic microcurrent to
chicken flexor tendon explants for 3 days, varying
current amplitude, direction and pulsing frequency.
130
They found that levels of fibroblast proliferation,
protein synthesis and collagen fibroplasia at the cut
surfaces of stimulated explants were significantly
greater than those of unstimulated controls. Effect
sizes were greatest at current densities of about 1 mA/
cm
2
, and at pulse frequency 1 Hz, and dropped off at
higher values. Applying the current longitudinally
maximised the effects, whilst no significant differences
between treated and control explants were found with
transverse application. This observation was explained
by other studies showing that fibroblasts lay down
collagen fibres parallel to the direction of the applied
field.
134,135
In a study using explants of rabbit flexor tendons
and their sheaths, longitudinal stimulation with
various DC microcurrent levels was applied for up
to 2 weeks.
41
Investigation of the cut surfaces
revealed evidence of cell proliferation and collagen
deposition in both treated and control samples, with
adhesions forming in the epitenon-sheath as a result.
Application of microcurrent caused different effects
according to current size. Above 1 mA there was
evidence of tissue degeneration and cell death, but at
0.5mA proliferation continued in the tendon sub-
stance but was significantly reduced in the sheath.
This observation rather astonishingly suggests that
microcurrent can selectively inhibit proliferation that
would lead to counterproductive adhesion formation
during sheathed-tendon healing.
In the first reported in vivo animal study, low level
current was applied to surgically wounded flexor tendons
of six ponies via a cathode implanted in the wound and
an anode 3 cm distal.
136
No gross or histological
differences were seen between treated and contralateral
control tendons at 4, 5 or 6 weeks post-injury. The
author speculated that the (unmonitored) current,
provided by a bimetallic strip, may have been too low
to affect healing. Later studies were more encouraging,
though a wide range of parameters was adopted, making
generalisation from their results problematic. Stanish
and colleagues transectedthemedialportionofthe
patellar tendons of nine dogs and divided them into three
groups, receiving plaster immobilisation, brief compres-
sion bandaging or constant 20 mAcurrentappliedviaa
cathode wrapped around the tendon.
137
After 6 weeks
the dogs were killed and the tendons removed with their
contralateral counterparts for comparison. Breaking
strengths as a percentage of the normal tendon values
were 47 and 50% for the first two groups, and 92% for
the MCT group. Though the sample sizes were small, the
difference is striking.
In a larger study,
138
the patellar tendons of 45
rabbits were transected bilaterally and cathodes
sutured into the lesions, anodes mounted on the
tissue surface. One limb was left untreated, the other
given 10 mA DC continuously, with tendons removed
at 3, 5 or 7 weeks for evaluation. Mechanical strength
was found to increase more rapidly in the early weeks
in stimulated tendons, whilst mature collagen forma-
tion was greater in the later weeks, compared to
controls. This suggested that MCT could accelerate
healing in both proliferative and remodelling phases
of healing.
Subsequent studies with rat Achilles tendons, knee
ligaments and joint capsules have consistently sug-
gested that MCT with a range of parameters can
accelerate repair and result in stronger tissue and
reduced contracture formation after injury, com-
pared to unstimulated controls.
56,139–143
Micro-
current has also been observed to promote rabbit
cartilage growth
57
and repair,
144
as well as rat
peripheral nerve regeneration.
52
DC or unbalanced
biphasic current was used in all the tendon studies,
but alternative current was also successfully
employed with other tissues. Treatment times varied
between 1 and 24 hours a day for between 1 and
4 weeks. Where currents were modulated, their
amplitudes were of the order of 100 mA (with
considerably lower average values), and electrodes
were implanted, usually delivering current parallel to
fibre orientation. The strength of the studies is in their
use of contralateral controls, allowing a cause–effect
relationship to be established. However their findings
cannot be aggregated because of heterogeneity in
their treatment parameters. They all used surgical
means to create lesions and animal models that are
imperfect analogues of human tissue disorders. The
lack of histological data also means that conclusions
cannot be drawn about repair processes. Despite
these limitations, they provide evidence that micro-
current can promote resolution of tissue damage, and
have justified progression to clinical trials of MCT.
Human studies
Following their work with surgically wounded canine
tendons, Stanish and colleagues reported on a series
Poltawski and Watson Bioelectricity and microcurrent therapy for tissue healing
Physical Therapy Reviews 2009 VOL 14 NO 2109
of more than 100 patients in which MCT was used
after surgical repair of torn Achilles and patellar
tendons and anterior cruciate ligaments.
137
A DC of
20 mA was applied (for an unreported time, pre-
sumably several weeks) via a cathode wrapped
around the lesion and a subcutaneous anode and
power-pack. The authors reported accelerated return
to full weight-bearing and function, and histological
analysis of 45 reconstructed ligaments 9 months after
surgery showed the tissue to be revascularised with
mature and well organised collagen. This was not a
formally controlled trial, however, and little numer-
ical data is provided for scrutiny.
MCT has been subject to trial with several
examples of chronic tendinopathy. One involved 48
people with Achilles tendinopathy of at least
3 months’ symptom duration, randomly assigned to
receive either microcurrent or conventional conser-
vative treatment.
145
A monophasic square wave of
amplitude 40 mA and frequency 10 Hz was applied
via surface electrodes placed transversely across the
lesion. Treatment was for 30 minutes daily over
14 days, followed by a regime of eccentric exercises.
Numerical measures of patient-rated pain and stiff-
ness and clinician-rated clinical status were recorded
at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment.
Statistically significant differences in favour of the
MCT group were found in these measures.
Sonography, which can be used to image changes
associated with tendinopathy,
146,147
was also
employed. The authors reported that sonographic
findings were ‘in agreement’ with these outcomes,
though specific data were not given. Improvements
were most marked in the first 3 months after
treatment. The study is weakened by non-standardi-
sation of the conventional treatment and a complex
and unvalidated scoring system used with the out-
come measures. However, the data are encouraging.
A more recent pilot controlled trial has used MCT
for chronic tennis elbow.
148
Sixteen people with
symptoms lasting at least 3 months were randomly
assigned to receive either a 6-week standardised
exercise programme or exercise plus MCT. Biphasic
square wave current, with a variety of parameters
including amplitudes 40 or 300 mA and frequencies of
0.3, 3 and 30 Hz, was used. Treatment was adminis-
tered via probes contacting the skin at various points
on the elbow and forearm for several minutes, 10
times over 3 weeks. Outcome measures were pressure
pain threshold at the tendon, grip strength and pain
on gripping, recorded at baseline and 1, 2, 3 and
6 weeks later. All participants improved but no
significant differences between groups were seen in
any of the outcome measures. The conclusions may
have been affected by the small sample size of the
study, but in any case it was hampered at the outset
by the use of MCT of very short duration and
methods of application that were given no scientific
justification by the authors.
Trials using microcurrent have been reported for
a range of other soft tissue lesions, including
plantar fasciitis,
149
delayed-onset muscle soreness
(DOMS),
150–152
radiation-induced fibrosis
153
and
osteoarthritis.
154
The outcomes of these trials suggest
– though not unequivocally – that MCT may have an
analgesic effect that is not due to sensory stimulation,
since the treatment is normally sub-sensory. Pain
relief may account for the improvement in other
outcome measures such as range of movement and
function. In one study there was also evidence of
mediation of the healing process. Serum creatine
kinase (CK) levels, which elevate following muscle
damage, were found to be lower in DOMS-induced
muscles after MCT than in an untreated control
group. The microcurrent was delivered by a skin-
mounted charged dielectric pad, providing an average
20 mA over 48 hours, and the CK level differences
were significantly lower in the treated group 4–7 days
after injury.
151
Drawing firm conclusions from these human
studies is hampered by various factors. In particular,
the use of proprietary devices delivering microcurrent
whose parameters are based on little if any scientific
rationale. The outcome measures they adopt often
give only indirect information about tissue status,
and some studies are poorly constructed or reported.
Nevertheless they suggest that MCT may have
potential in promoting the resolution of various
musculoskeletal soft tissue disorders, and indicate the
need for well-conducted clinical trials. The normally
sub-sensory nature of microcurrent means that
double-blind placebo-controlled trials, which could
provide convincing evidence, are practicable.
However, at least for the present, the most persuasive
evidence in favour of MCT for soft tissue lesions is
provided by cellular and animal studies.
Conclusions
The evidence in support of MCT is convincing
enough to justify its inclusion in the clinician’s
repertoire for treatment of several examples of
recalcitrant bone and skin lesions. Indeed federal
and private health insurance providers in the USA
have accepted its use (along with other forms of
Poltawski and Watson Bioelectricity and microcurrent therapy for tissue healing
110 Physical Therapy Reviews 2009 VOL 14 NO 2
electrical stimulation) for spinal fusions and hard to
heal skin ulcers for some years.
53,83
In contrast, the
lack of substantial and robust human trial evidence
for the use of MCT with musculoskeletal soft tissue
lesions is frustrating. Clinicians are justifiably cau-
tious when presented with yet another form of
electrotherapy, especially when the case for those
that are more familiar and well-used, such as
therapeutic ultrasound, has been questioned in
several reviews.
155–157
Yet MCT has several significant features in its
favour: there is already substantial evidence that it
can promote healing in a variety of tissue types and
disorders, especially where other approaches have
failed; it may help redress an underlying physiological
dysfunction as well as reducing its symptoms; its
mechanism of action appears to be as a trigger or
facilitator of the whole healing process, unlike some
new approaches such as exogenous growth factors,
which have specific targets in the healing cascade.
Reported side-effects of MCT are few and minor, and
it can be provided by a small, portable generator,
over an extended period where necessary, requiring
minimal therapist supervision once initiated. The
therapy has been shown to be most beneficial when it
is used as part of a broader management strategy.
Given these characteristics, the potential for MCT in
a range of recalcitrant musculoskeletal disorders is
worthy of closer attention by both research and
clinical communities.
References
1 Kalfas IH. Principles of bone healing. Neurosurg Focus
2001;10(4):E1
2 Liu SH, Yang RS, Al-Shaikh R, Lane JM. Collagen in tendon,
ligament, and bone healing: a current review. Clin Orthop Relat
Res 1995;(318):265–78
3 Agren MS, Werthen M. The extracellular matrix in wound
healing: a closer look at therapeutics for chronic wounds. Int J
Low Extrem Wounds 2007;6(2):82–97
4HuntTK,HopfH,HussainZ.Physiologyofwoundhealing.Adv
Skin Wound Care 2000;13(Suppl 2):6–11
5 Werner S, Grose R. Regulation of wound healing by growth
factors and cytokines. Physiol Rev 2003;83(3):835–70
6 Bassett CAL. Bioelectromagenetics in the services of medicine, In:
Blank M (ed) Electroagnetic Fields: Biological Interactions and
Mechanisms. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, 1995
7 Kloth LC, Feedar JA (eds). Electrical stimulation in tissue repair.
In: Wound Healing – Alternatives in Management. 2nd ed.
Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis Company, 1995;221–58
8 Becker RO, Selden G. The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and
the Foundation of Life. New York: William Morrow, 1985
9*Black J. Electrical Stimulation: Its Role in Growth, Repair and
Remodelling of the Musculoskeletal System. New York: Prager,
1987
10 Mast BA. Healing in other tissues. Surg Clin North Am
1997;77(3):529–47
11 Platt MA. Tendon repair and healing. Clin Podiatr Med Surg,
2005;22(4):553–60
12 Molloy T, Wang Y, Murrell G. The roles of growth factors in
tendon and ligament healing. Sports Med 2003;33(5):381–94
13*Nuccitelli R. Endogenous electric fields in embryos during
development, regeneration and wound healing. Radiat Prot
Dosimetry 2003;106(4):375–83
14 Nuccitelli R. Endogenous ionic currents and DC electric fields in
multicellular animal tissues. Bioelectromagnetics 1992;(Suppl
1):147–57
15 Friedenberg ZB, Harlow MC, Heppenstall RB, Brighton CT. The
cellular origin of bioelectric potentials in bone. Calcif Tissue Res
1973;13(1):53–62
16 Wright SH. Generation of resting membrane potential. Adv
Physiol Educ 2004;28(1–4):139–42
17 Borgens RB. Endogenous ionic currents traverse intact and
damaged bone. Science 1984;225(4661):478–82
18 Friedenberg ZB, Brighton CT. Bioelectric potentials in bone.
J Bone Joint Surg Am 1966;48(5):915–23
19 Foulds IS, Barker AT. Human skin battery potentials and their
possible role in wound healing. Br J Dermatol 1983;109(5):515–22
20 Trumbore DC, Heideger WJ, Beach KW. Electrical potential
difference across bone membrane. Calcif TissueInt 1980;32(2):159–
68
21 Gustke RF, McCormick P, Ruppin H, Soergel KH, Whalen GE,
Wood CM. Human intestinal potential difference: recording
method and biophysical implications. J Physiol 1981;321:571–
82
22 Wu WK, Li GR, Wong TM, Wang JY, Yu L, Cho CH.
Involvement of voltage-gated Kzand Nazchannels in gastric
epithelial cell migration. Mol Cell Biochem 2008;308(1–2):219–26
23 Borgens RB. Natural and applied currents in limb regeneration
and development. In: Borgens RB et al (eds) Electric Fields in
Vertebrate Repair. New York: Alan R Liss Inc., 1984
24 McCaig CD, Rajnicek AM, Song B, Zhao M. Controlling cell
behavior electrically: current views and future potential. Physiol
Rev 2005;85(3):943–78
25 Chen CT, McCabe RP, Grodzinsky AJ, Vanderby R Jr. Transient
and cyclic responses of strain-generated potential in rabbit
patellar tendon are frequency and pH dependent. J Biomech
Eng 2000;122(5):465–70
26 Spadaro JA. Mechanical and electrical interactions in bone
remodeling. Bioelectromagnetics 1997;18(3):193–202
27 Fukada E, Yasuda I. On the piezoelectric effect of bone. J Phys
Soc Jpn 1957;12(10):1158–1162
28 Anderson JC, Eriksson C. Electrical properties of wet collagen.
Nature 1968;218(5137):166–8
29 Vanables JWJ. Integumentary potentials and wound healing. In:
Borgens RB et al. (eds) Electric Fields in Vertebrate Repair. New
York: Alan R Liss Inc., 1984
30 Borgens RB. What is the role of naturally produced electric
current in vertebrate regeneration and healing. Int Rev Cytol
1982;76:245–98
31 Song B, Zhao M, Forrester J, McCaig C. Nerve regeneration and
wound healing are stimulated and directed by an endogenous
electrical field in vivo. J Cell Sci 2004;117(Pt 20):4681–90
32 Kappel D, Zilber S, Ketchum L. In vivo electrophysiology of
tendons and applied current during tendon healing. In: Llaurado
JG, Sances A, Battocletti JH (eds) Biologic and Clinical Effects of
Low-Frequency Magnetic and Electric Fields. Springfield, IL: C.
C. Thomas, 1974;252–60
33 Jaffe LF, Vanable JW Jr. Electric fields and wound healing. Clin
Dermatol 1984;2(3):34–44
34 Song B, Zhao M, Forrester JV, McCaig CD. Electrical cues
regulate the orientation and frequency of cell division and
the rate of wound healing in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
2002;99(21):13577–82
35 Zhao M, Song B, Pu J, Wada T, Reid B, Tai G et al. Electrical
signals control wound healing through phosphatidylinositol-3-
OH kinase-gamma and PTEN. Nature 2006;442(7101):457–60
36 Cheng N, Van Hoof H, Bockx E, Hoogmartens MJ, Mulier JC,
de Dijcker FJ et al. The effects of electric currents on ATP
generation, protein synthesis, and membrane transport of rat
skin. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1982;(171):264–72
37 Funk RH, Monsees TK. Effects of electromagnetic fields on cells:
physiological and therapeutical approaches and molecular
mechanisms of interaction: a review. Cells Tissues Organs
2006;182(2):59–78
Poltawski and Watson Bioelectricity and microcurrent therapy for tissue healing
Physical Therapy Reviews 2009 VOL 14 NO 2111
38 Cheng K, Goldman RJ. Electric fields and proliferation in a
dermal wound model: cell cycle kinetics. Bioelectromagnetics
1998;19(2):68–74
39 Leffman DJ, Arnall DA, Holman PR, Cornwall MW. Effect of
microamperage stimulation on the rate of wound healing in rats: a
histological study. Phys Ther 1994;74(3):195–200
40 Lin YL, Moolenaar H, van Weeren R, van de Lest CH, Effect of
microcurrent electrical tissue stimulation on equine tenocytes in
culture. Am J Vet Res 2006;67(2):271–6
41 Fujita M, Hukuda S, Doida Y. The effect of constant direct
electrical current on intrinsic healing in the flexor tendon in vitro.
An ultrastructural study of differing amplitudes in epitenon cells
and tenocytes. J Hand Surg [Br] 1992;17(1):94–8
42 Okihana H, Shimomura Y. Effect of direct current on cultured
growth cartilage cells in vitro. J Orthop Res 1988;6(5):690–4
43 Wang Q, Zhong S, Ouyang J, Jiang L, Zhang Z, Xie Y et al.
Osteogenesis of electrically stimulated bone cells mediated in part
by calcium ions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998;(348):259–68
44 Cucullo L, Dini G, Hallene KL, Fazio V, Ilkanich EV, Igboechi C
et al. Very low intensity alternating current decreases cell
proliferation. Glia 2005;51(1):65–72
45 Blumenthal NC, Ricci J, Breger L, Zychlinsky A, Solomon H,
Chen GG et al.Effectsoflow-intensityACand/orDC
electromagnetic fields on cell attachment and induction of
apoptosis. Bioelectromagnetics 1997;18(3):264–72
46 Wong ME, Hollinger JO, Pinero GJ. Integrated processes
responsible for soft tissue healing. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral
Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996;82(5):475–92
47 Zhao M, Agius-Fernandez A, Forrester JV, McCaig CD.
Directed migration of corneal epithelial sheets in physiological
electric fields. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996;37(13):2548–58
48 Chao PH, Roy R, Mauck RL, Liu W, Valhmu WB, Hung CT.
Chondrocyte translocation response to direct current electric
fields. J Biomech Eng 2000;122(3):261–7
49 Ferrier J, Ross SM, Kanehisa J, Aubin JE. Osteoclasts and
osteoblasts migrate in opposite directions in response to a
constant electrical field. J Cell Physiol 1986;129(3):283–8
50 Vanable JWJ. Integumentary potentials and wound healing. In:
Borgens RB et al. (eds) Electric Fields in Vertebrate Repair. New
York: Alan R Liss Inc., 1984
51 Bai H, McCaig CD, Forrester JV, Zhao M. DC electric fields
induce distinct preangiogenic responses in microvascularand macro-
vascular cells. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2004;24(7):1234–9
52 Mendonca AC, Barbieri CH, Mazzer N. Directly applied low
intensity direct electric current enhances peripheral nerve
regeneration in rats. J Neurosci Methods 2003;129(2):183–90
53*Kloth LC. Electrical stimulation for wound healing: a review of
evidence from in vitro studies, animal experiments, and clinical
trials. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2005;4(1):23–44
54 Supronowicz P, Ullmann K, Ajayan P, Arulanandam B, Metzger
D, Bizios R. Electrical stimulation promotes osteoblast functions
pertinent to osteogenesis. Trans Orthop Res Soc 2001;26:0568
55 Brighton CT, Friedenberg ZB, Black J, Esterhai JL Jr, Mitchell
JE, Montique F Jr. Electrically induced osteogenesis: relationship
between charge, current density, and the amount of bone formed:
introduction of a new cathode concept. Clin Orthop Relat Res
1981;(161):122–32
56*Enwemeka CS, Spielholz NI. Modulation of tendon growth and
regeneration by electrical fields and currents. In: Currier DP,
Nelson RM (eds) Dynamics of Human Biologic Tissues.
Philadelphia, PA: FA Davis Company, 1992;231–54
57 Takei N, Akai M. Effect of direct current stimulation on
triradiate physeal cartilage. In vivo study in young rabbits. Arch
Orthop Trauma Surg 1993;112(4):159–62
58 Peltier LF. A brief historical note on the use of electricity in the
treatment of fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1981;(161):4–7
59 Yasuda I. Fundamental aspects of fracture treatment. J Kyoto
Med Soc 1953;4:395–406
60 Percy EC, Wilson CL. Experimental studies on epiphyseal
stimulation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1956;38-A(5):1096–104
61 Bassett CA, Pawluk RJ, Becker RO. Effects of electric currents on
bone in vivo. Nature 1964;204:652–4
62 Friedenberg ZB, Zemsky LM, Pollis RP, Brighton CT. The
response of non-traumatized bone to direct current. J Bone Joint
Surg Am 1974;56(5):1023–30
63 Rubinacci A, Tessari L. A correlation analysis between bone
formation rate and bioelectric potentials in rabbit tibia. Calcif
Tissue Int 1983;35(6):728–31
64 McGinnis ME. The nature and effects of electricity in bone. In
Borgens RB et al. (eds) Electric Fields in Vertebrate Repair. New
York: Alan R. Liss, 1989;225–84
65 Friedenberg ZB, Roberts PG Jr, Didizian NH, Brighton CT.
Stimulation of fracture healing by direct current in the rabbit
fibula. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1971;53(7):1400–8
66 Zorlu U, Tercan M, Ozyazgan I, Tas¸kan I, Kardas¸ Y, Balkar F
et al. Comparative study of the effect of ultrasound and electro-
stimulation on bone healing in rats. Am J Phys Med Rehabil
1998;77(5):427–32
67 Kleczynski S. Electrical stimulation to promote the union of
fractures. Int Orthop 1988;12(1):83–7
68 Chakkalakal DA, Lippiello L, Shindell RL, Connolly JF.
Electrophysiology of direct current stimulation of fracture healing
in canine radius. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1990;37(11):1048–58
69 Marino AA, Gross BD, Specian RD. Electrical stimulation of
mandibular osteotomies in rabbits. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral
Pathol 1986;62(1):20–4
70 France JC, Norman TL, Santrock RD, McGrath B, Simon BJ.
The efficacy of direct current stimulation for lumbar intertrans-
verse process fusions in an animal model. Spine 2001;26(9):1002–8
71 Lavine LS, Grodzinsky AJ. Electrical stimulation of repair of
bone. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1987. 69A(4):626–30
72 Black J. Electrical stimulation of hard and soft tissues in animal
models. Clin Plast Surg 1985;12(2):243–57
73 Friedenberg ZB, Harlow MC, Brighton CT. Healing of nonunion
of the medial malleolus by means of direct current: a case report.
J Trauma 1971;11(10):883–5
74 Rodriguez-Merchan EC, Forriol F. Nonunion: general principles
and experimental data. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;(419):4–12
75 Brighton CT, Friedenberg ZB, Mitchell EI, Booth RE. Treatment
of nonunion with constant direct current. Clin Orthop Relat Res
1977;(124):106–23
76 Brighton CT, Black J, Friedenberg ZB, Esterhai JL, Day LJ,
Connolly JF. A multicenter study of the treatment of non-union
with constant direct current. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1981;63(1):2–
13
77 Paterson DC, Lewis GN, Cass CA. Treatment of delayed union
and nonunion with an implanted direct current stimulator. Clin
Orthop Relat Res 1980;(148):117–28
78 Cundy PJ, Paterson DC. A ten-year review of treatment of
delayed union and nonunion with an implanted bone growth
stimulator. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990;(259):216–22
79 Zichner L. Repair of nonunions by electrically pulsed current
stimulation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1981;(161):115–21
80 Brighton CT, Shaman P, Heppenstall RB, Esterhai JL Jr, Pollack
SR, Friedenberg ZB. Tibial nonunion treated with direct current,
capacitive coupling, or bone graft. Clin Orthop Relat Res
1995;(321):223–34
81 Kahanovitz N. Spine update: the use of adjunctive electrical
stimulation to enhance the healing of spine fusions. Spine
1996;21(21):2523–5
82 Dwyer AF, Wickham GG. Direct current stimulation in spinal
fusion. Med J Aust 1974;1(3):73–5
83 Kane WJ. Direct current electrical bone growth stimulation for
spinal fusion. Spine 1988;13(3):363–5
84 Meril AJ. Direct current stimulation of allograft in anterior and
posterior lumbar interbody fusions. Spine 1994;19(21):2393–8
85 Rogozinski A, Rogozinski C. Efficacy of implanted bone growth
stimulation in instrumented lumbosacral spinal fusion. Spine
1996;21(21):2479–83
86 Aka i M, Ha yashi K. Ef fect of ele ctrical s timulation o n
musculoskeletal systems: a meta-analysis of controlled clinical
trials. Bioelectromagnetics 2002;23(2):132–43
87 Gan JC, Glazer PA. Electrical stimulation therapies for spinal
fusions: current concepts. Eur Spine J 2006;15(9):1301–11
88 Akai M, Kawashima N, Kimura T, Hayashi K. Electrical
stimulation as an adjunct to spinal fusion: a meta-analysis of
controlled clinical trials. Bioelectromagnetics 2002;23(7):496–504
89 Kucharzyk DW. A controlled prospective outcome study of
implantable electrical stimulation with spinal instrumentation in a
Poltawski and Watson Bioelectricity and microcurrent therapy for tissue healing
112 Physical Therapy Reviews 2009 VOL 14 NO 2
high-risk spinal fusion population. Spine 1999;24(5):465–8;
discussion 469
90 Morone MA, Feuer H. The use of electrical stimulation to
enhance spinal fusion. Neurosurg Focus 2002;13(6):e5
91 Kahanovitz N, Pashos C. The role of implantable direct current
electrical stimulation in the critical pathway for lumbar spinal
fusion. J Care Manage 1996;6:2–8.
92 Midis N, Conti SF, Revision ankle arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int
2002;23(3):243–7
93 Donley BG, Ward DM. Implantable electrical stimulation in
high-risk hindfoot fusions. Foot Ankle Int 2002;23(1):13–8
94 Brighton CT, Friedenberg ZB, Zemsky LM, Pollis PR. Direct-
current stimulation of non-union and congenital pseudarthrosis.
Exploration of its clinical application. J Bone Joint Surg Am
1975;57(3):368–77
95 Lavine LS, Lustrin I, Shamos MH. Treatment of congenital
pseudarthrosis of the tibia with direct current. Clin Orthop Relat
Res 1977;(124):69–74
96 Paterson DC, Lewis GN, Cass CA. Treatment of congenital
pseudarthrosis of the tibia with direct current stimulation. Clin
Orthop Relat Res 1980;(148):129–35
97 Paterson DC, Simonis RB. Electrical stimulation in the treatment
of congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br
1985;67(3):454–62
98 Jorgensen TE. Electrical stimulation of human fracture healing by
means of a slow pulsating, asymmetrical direct current. Clin
Orthop Relat Res 1977;(124):124–7
99 Masureik C, Eriksson C. Preliminary clinical evaluation of the
effect of small electrical currents on the healing of jaw fractures.
Clin Orthop Relat Res 1977;(124):84–91
100 Driban JB. Bone stimulators and microcurrent: clinical bio-
electrics. Athlet Ther Today 2004;9(5):22–7, 36–7, 72
101 Mollon B, da Silva V, Busse JW, Einhorn TA, Bhandari M.
Electrical stimulation for long-bone fracture-healing: a meta-
analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am
2008;90(11):2322–30
102 Chao EY, Inoue N. Biophysical stimulation of bone fracture
repair, regeneration and remodelling. Eur Cell Mater 2003;6:72–
84; discussion 84-5
103 Cochran GV. Experimental methods for stimulation of bone
healing by means of electrical energy. Bull N Y Acad Med
1972;48(7):899–911
104 L avine L, Lustrin I, Rinaldi R, Shamos M. Clinical and
ultrastructural investigations of electrical enhancement of bone
healing. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1974;238:552–63
105*Aaron RK, Ciombor DM, Simon BJ. Treatment of nonunions
with electric and electromagnetic fields. Clin Orthop Relat Res
2004;(419):21–9
106 Lampe KE. Electrotherapy in tissue repair. J Hand Ther
1998;11(2):131–9
107 Markov MS, Pilla AA. Review: electromagnetic field stimulation
of soft tissues: pulsed radio frequency treatment of post-operative
pain and edema. Wounds Compend Clin Res Pract 1995;7(4):143–
51
108 Ojingwa JC, Isseroff RR. Electrical stimulation of wound healing.
J Invest Dermatol 2003;121(1):1–12
109 Robertson WS. Digby’s receipts. Ann Med Hist 1925;7(3):216–9
110 Kanof NM. Gold leaf in the treatment of cutaneous ulcers.
J Invest Dermatol 1964;43:441–2
111 Gallagher JP, Geschickter F. The use of charged gold leaf in
surgery. Jama 1964;189:928–33
112 Assimacopoulos D. Wound healing promotion by the use of
negative electric current. Am Surg 1968;34(6):423–31
113 Assimacopoulos D. Low intensity negative electric current in the
treatment of ulcers of the leg due to chronic venous insufficiency:
preliminary report of three cases. Am J Surg 1968;115(5):683–7
114 W olc ott LE, Wheele r PC, Hardwick e HM, Rowley BA.
Accelerated healing of skin ulcer by electrotherapy: preliminary
clinical results. South Med J 1969;62(7):795–801
115 Gault WR, Gatens PF Jr. Use of low intensity direct current in
management of ischemic skin ulcers. Phys Ther 1976;56(3):265–9
116 Carley PJ, Wainapel SF. Electrotherapy for acceleration of
wound healing: low intensity direct current. Arch Phys Med
Rehabil 1985;66(7):443–6
117 Stefanovska A, Vodovnik L, Benko H, Turk R. Treatment of
chronic wounds by means of electric and electromagnetic fields.
Med Biol Eng Comput 1993;31(3):213–20
118 Baker LL, Chambers R, DeMuth SK, Villar F. Effects of
electrical stimulation on wound healing in patients with diabetic
ulcers. Diabetes Care 1997;20(3):405–12
119 Wood JM, Evans PE, III, Schallreuter KU, Jacobson WE, Sufit
R, Newman J et al. A multicenter study on the use of pulsed low-
intensity direct current for healing chronic stage II and stage III
decubitus ulcers. Arch Dermatol 1993;129(8):999–1009
120 Barron JJ, Jacobson WE, Tidd G. Treatment of decubitus ulcers:
a new approach. Minn Med 1985;68(2):103–6
121 Karba R, Semrov D, Vodovnik L, Benko H, Savrin R. DC
electrical stimulation for chronic wound healing enhancement
Part 1. Clinical study and determination of electrical field
distribution in the numerical wound model. Bioelectrochem
Bioenerg 1997;43(2):265–270
122 Huckfeldt R, Flick AB, Mikkelson D, Lowe C, Fnley PJ. Wound
closure after split-thickness skin grafting is accelerated with the
use of continuous direct anodal microcurrent applied to silver
nylon wound contact dressings. J Burn Care Res 2007;28(5):703–7
123 Moore K. Electric stimulation of chronic wounds. J Community
Nurs 2007;21(1):20–22
124 Watson T. Electrical stimulation for wound healing. Phys Ther
Rev 1996;1(2):89–103
125 Ramadan A, Elsaidy M, Zyada R. Effect of low-intensity direct
current on the healing of chronic wounds: a literature review.
J Wound Care 2008;17(7):292–6
126 Gardner SE, Frantz RA, Schmidt FL. Effect of electrical
stimulation on chronic wound healing: a meta-analysis. Wound
Repair Regen 1999;7(6):495–503
127 Balakatounis KC, Angoules AG. Low-intensity electrical stimu-
lation in wound healing: review of the efficacy of externally
applied currents resembling the current of injury. Eplasty
2008;8:e28
128 Vodovnik L, Karba R. Treatment of chronic wounds by means of
electric and electromagnetic fields. Part 1. Literature review. Med
Biol Eng Comput 1992;30(3):267–76
129 Chao PH, Lu HH, Hung CT, Nicoll SB, Bulinski JC. Effects of
applied DC electric field on ligament fibroblast migration and
wound healing. Connect Tissue Res 2007;48(4):188–97
130 Cleary SF, Liu LM, Graham R, Diegelmann RF. Modulation
of tendon fibroplasia by exogenous electric currents. Bio-
electromagnetics 1988;9(2):183–94
131 McLeod KJ, Lee RC, Ehrlich HP. Frequency dependence of
electric field modulation of fibroblast protein synthesis. Science
1987;236(4807):1465–9
132 Sun S, Wise J, Cho M. Human fibroblast migration in three-
dimensional collagen gel in response to noninvasive electrical
stimulus. I. Characterization of induced three-dimensional cell
movement. Tissue Eng 2004;10(9–10):1548–57
133 Nessler JP, Mass DP. Direct-current electrical stimulation of
tendon healing in vitro. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987;(217):303–12
134 Lee RC, Canaday DJ, Doong H. A review of the biophysical
basis for the clinical application of electric fields in soft-tissue
repair. J Burn Care Rehabil 1993;14(3):319–35
135 Erickson CA, Nuccitelli R. Embryonic fibroblast motility and
orientation can be influenced by physiological electric fields. J Cell
Biol 1984;98(1):296–307
136 Norrie RD. A preliminary report on regenerative healing in the
equine tendon. Am J Vet Res 1975;36(10):1523–4
137 Stanish W. The use of electricity in ligament and tendon repair.
Phys Sportsmed 1985;13:108–116
138 Akai M, Oda H, Shirasaki Y, Tateishi T. Electrical stimulation of
ligament healing: an experimental study of the patellar ligament
of rabbits. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988;(235):296–301
139 Chan HK, Fung DT, Ng GY. Effects of low-voltage micro-
amperage stimulation on tendon healing in rats. J Orthop Sports
Phys Ther 2007;37(7):399–403
140 Kenney TK, Dahners LE. The effect of electrical stimulation
on ligament healing in a rat model. Trans Orthop Res Soc
1988;13:107
141 Akai M, Shirasaki Y, Tateishi T. Electrical stimulation on joint
contracture: an experiment in rat model with direct current. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78(4):405–9
Poltawski and Watson Bioelectricity and microcurrent therapy for tissue healing
Physical Therapy Reviews 2009 VOL 14 NO 2113
142 Litke DS, Dahners LE. Effects of different levels of direct current
on early ligament healing in a rat model. JOrthopRes
1994;12(5):683–8
143 Tart RP, Dahners LE. Effects of electrical stimulation on joint
contracture in a rat model. J Orthop Res 1989;7(4):538–42
144 Lippiello L, Chakkalakal D, Connolly JF. Pulsing direct current-
induced repair of articular cartilage in rabbit osteochondral
defects. J Orthop Res 1990;8(2):266–75
145*Chapman-Jones D, Hill D. Novel microcurrent treatment is
more effective than conventional therapy for chronic Achilles
tendinopathy: randomised comparative trial. Physiotherapy
2002;88(8):471–480
146 Reiter M, Ulreich N, Dirisamer A, Tscholakoff D, Bucek RA.
Colour and power Doppler sonography in symptomatic Achilles
tendon disease. Int J Sports Med 2004;25(4):301–5
147 Connell D, Burke F, Coombes P, McNealy S, Freeman D, Pryde
Det al. Sonographic examination of lateral epicondylitis. AJR
Am J Roentgenol 2001;176(3):777–82
148 Ho LO, Kwong WL, Cheing GL. Effectiveness of microcurrent
therapy in the management of lateral epicondylitis: a pilot study.
Hong Kong Physiother J 2007;25:14–20
149 Cho M-S, Park R-J, Park SH, Cho Y-H, Cheng GA. The effect of
microcurrent-inducing shoes on fatigue and pain in middle-aged
people with plantar fascitis. J Phys Ther Sci 2007;19(2):165–170.
150 Allen JD, Mattacola CG, Perrin DH. Effect of microcurrent
stimulation on delayed-onset muscle soreness: a double-blind
comparison. J Athl Train 1999;34(4):334–7
151 Lambert MI, Marcus P, Burgess T, Noakes TD. Electro-
membrane microcurrent therapy reduces signs and symptoms of
muscle damage. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002;34(4):602–7
152 Denegar CR, Yoho AP, Borowicz AJ, Bifulco N. The effects of
low-volt, microamperage stimulation on delayed onset muscle
soreness. J Sport Rehabil 1992;1(2):95–102
153 Lennox AJ, Shafer JP, Hatcher M, Beil J, Funder SJ. Pilot study
of impedance-controlled microcurrent therapy for managing
radiation-induced fibrosis in head-and-neck cancer patients. Int
J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54(1):23–34
154 Zizic TM, Hoffman KC, Holt PA, Hungerford DS, O’Dell JR,
Jacobs MA et al. The treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee with
pulsed electrical stimulation. J Rheumatol 1995;22(9):1757–61
155 Robertson VJ, Baker KG. A review of therapeutic ultrasound:
effectiveness studies. Phys Ther 2001;81(7):1339–50.
156 van der Windt DA, van der Heijden GJ, van den Berg SG, ter Riet
G, de Winter AF, Bouter LM. Ultrasound therapy for musculo-
skeletal disorders: a systematic review. Pain 1999;81(3):257–71
157 Falconer J, Hayes KW, Chang RW. Therapeutic ultrasound in
the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions. Arthritis Care Res
1990;3(2):85–91
LEON POLTAWSKI
School of Health and Emergency Professions, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, AL10 9AB, UK
Tel: z44 1707 284968; Email: L.Poltawski@herts.ac.uk
Poltawski and Watson Bioelectricity and microcurrent therapy for tissue healing
114 Physical Therapy Reviews 2009 VOL 14 NO 2
