Skip to main content
Medicine logoLink to Medicine
. 2020 Aug 28;99(35):e21449. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021449

Analgesic effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields for mammaplasty

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Li Zhang a, Wei Ding a, Yu Ji b,
Editor: Giovanni Tarantino
PMCID: PMC7458251  PMID: 32871867

Abstract

Background:

Pulsed electromagnetic fields shows some potential in alleviating pain after mammaplasty. This systematic review and meta-analysis is conducted to investigate the analgesic efficacy of pulsed electromagnetic fields for pain control after mammaplasty.

Methods:

The databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases are systematically searched for collecting the randomized controlled trials regarding the impact of pulsed electromagnetic fields on pain intensity after mammaplasty.

Results:

This meta-analysis has included 4 randomized controlled trials. Compared with control group after mammaplasty, pulsed electromagnetic fields results in remarkably reduced pain scores on 1 day (MD = −1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −2.23 to −0.45; P = .003) and 3 days (MD = −1.86; 95% CI = −3.23 to −0.49; P = .008), as well as analgesic consumption (Std. MD = −5.64; 95% CI = −7.26 to −4.02; P < .00001).

Conclusions:

Pulsed electromagnetic fields is associated with substantially reduced pain intensity after mammaplasty.

Keywords: mammaplasty, pain control, pulsed electromagnetic fields, randomized controlled trials

1. Introduction

Acute postoperative pain widely occurred in patients with mammaplasty such as breast reconstruction and augmentation.[14] This postoperative pain results in poor recovery and the development of chronic postoperative pain.[57] Many methods have been developed to reduce postsurgical pain after mammaplasty, but there are lack of consistent benefits such as intravenous analgesics, indwelling pain catheters, and simple irrigation or infiltration of local anesthetics.[811]

Pulsed electromagnetic fields have been a successfully noninvasive and nonthermal approach to accelerate the repair of delayed and nonunion fractures and chronic wounds, and the reduction of pain and inflammation.[1214] Postoperative pain control of breast surgery has become a significant concern for surgeons.[1518] In patients with breast augmentation and reduction, disposable pulsed electromagnetic field devices applied immediately after the surgery, can significantly accelerate pain reduction and reduce postoperative narcotic requirements.[1921]

Recently, several studies regarding the effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields on pain intensity after mammaplasty have been published, and the results have not been well established.[2123] Considering these inconsistent effects, we therefore conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy of pulsed electromagnetic fields on pain control after mammaplasty.

2. Materials and methods

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement[24] and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions[25] are used to guide the performance of this systematic review and meta-analysis. Two investigators have independently searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies, so ethical approval was not necessary.

2.1. Literature search and selection criteria

Several databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and the Cochrane library are systematically searched using the keywords: mammaplasty or breast augmentation or breast reconstruction or breast reduction, and electromagnetic fields. The time in publishing the studies is from inception to February, 2020.

The inclusion criteria are as follows:

  • (1)

    study design is RCT,

  • (2)

    study population are patients undergoing mammaplasty,

  • (3)

    intervention treatments are pulsed electromagnetic fields versus placebo.

2.2. Data extraction and outcome measures

Some information is collected for summarizing the baseline characteristics of patients in the included RCTs, and they include first author, publication year, sample size, body mass index, baseline pain scores and detail methods of 2 groups.

The primary outcomes are pain scores on 1 day and 3 days. Secondary outcome is analgesic consumption.

2.3. Quality assessment in individual studies

The methodological quality of included RCTs is evaluated using the Jadad Scale, which is composed of 3 evaluation elements including randomization (0–2 points), blinding (0–2 points), dropouts and withdrawals (0–1 points).[26] One point would be allocated to each element based on the description, randomization and/or blinding of the included RCTs. The score of Jadad Scale has a range from 0 to 5 points, and 1 study with Jadad score ≥3 is thought to have the high quality.[27]

2.4. Statistical analysis

Review Manager Version 5.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Software Update, Oxford) is used for the all statistical analyses. We have calculated the mean differences (MDs) or standard mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all continuous outcomes. Heterogeneity is quantified with the I2 statistic, and an I2 value greater than 50% represents the significant heterogeneity. The random-effect model with DerSimonian and Laird weights is applied for all the meta-analyses regardless of the heterogeneity. When the significant heterogeneity presents, sensitivity analysis is conducted to detect the influence of a single study on the overall estimate or perform the subgroup analysis. Publication bias is not evaluated because of the limited number (<10). P < .05 is thought to be statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Literature search, study characteristics and quality assessment

Figure 1 demonstrates the flow chart for the selection process and detailed identification. 249 publications are searched after the initial search of databases. 95 duplicates and 148 papers after checking the titles/abstracts are excluded. Two studies are removed because of the study design and four RCTs are ultimately included in the meta-analysis.[19,2123]

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Flow diagram of study searching and selection process.

Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of 4 eligible RCTs. The 4 studies are published between 2008 and 2016, and total sample size is 164. The surgical procedures include the breast augmentation,[19,22] breast reconstruction,[23] and breast reduction.[21] Among the four RCTs, 2 studies report pain scores on 1 day,[22,23] 2 studies report pain scores on 3 days,[19,23] and four studies report analgesic consumption.[19,2123] Jadad scores of the four eligible studies vary from 3 to 4, and thus this quality assessment confirms these studies with high-quality.

Table 1.

Characteristics of included studies.

3.1.

3.2. Primary outcomes: pain scores on 1 day and 3 days

The random-effect model is used for the analysis of primary outcomes. The results find that compared to control intervention after mammoplasty, pulsed electromagnetic fields is associated with substantially reduced pain scores on 1 day (MD = −1.34; 95% CI = −2.23 to −0.45; P = .003) with significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 96%, heterogeneity P < .00001, Fig. 2) and 3 days (MD = −1.86; 95% CI = −3.23 to −0.49; P = .008) with significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 98%, heterogeneity P < .00001, Fig. 3).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Forest plot for the meta-analysis of pain scores on 1 day.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Forest plot for the meta-analysis of pain scores on 3 days.

3.3. Sensitivity analysis

The meta-analysis of pain scores on 1 day and 3 days has significant heterogeneity among the included studies, but there are just 2 studies included. Therefore, we do not perform sensitivity analysis by omitting 1 study in each turn or conduct the subgroup analysis. Figure 4 shows a funnel plot for studies reporting pain scores on 1 day and 3 days. The plot is obviously not symmetrical, which also indicates the significant heterogeneity.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Funnel plot for the outcome of pain scores on 1 day (A) and 3 days (B).

3.4. Secondary outcome

In comparison with control intervention after mammaplasty, pulsed electromagnetic fields results in significantly reduced analgesic consumption after the surgery (Std. MD = −5.64; 95% CI = −7.26 to −4.02; P < .00001; Fig. 5).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Forest plot for the meta-analysis of analgesic consumption.

4. Discussion

The efficacy of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on postoperative pain and narcotic use were comparable to those patients with breast augmentation and reduction.[1921] Pulsed electromagnetic field effect on inflammation and interleukin-1β was similar to breast reconstruction and breast reductions using the same pulsed electromagnetic field signal.[21,23,28] Our meta-analysis suggested that pulsed electromagnetic fields can significantly reduce the pain scores on 1 days and 3 days, as well as the analgesic consumption for patients with breast mammaplasty.

Pulsed electromagnetic fields was documented to significantly decrease the levels of interleukin-1β, and wound exudate volume in the first 24 hours postoperatively. Interleukin-1β was known as a principal inflammatory cytokine involved in pain hypersensitivity in wound exudates.[21,23] The beneficial mechanisms of pulsed electromagnetic fields for pain control remained elucidated, and may be associated with the modulation of calmodulin-dependent nitric oxide/cyclic guanosine monophosphate signaling, a primary anti-inflammatory and repair pathway.[2932] Nitric oxide/cyclic guanosine monophosphate signaling activated by pulsed electromagnetic fields leads to the decreased release of proinflammatory cytokines (eg, interleukin-1β) and the increased release of anti-inflammatory cytokines (eg, interleukin-6 and interleukin-10) and growth factors (eg, fibroblast growth factor-2) in challenged cells and tissues.[3336] Pulsed electromagnetic field signal was also reported to enhance microvascular perfusion and neuronal regeneration.[37,38]

Previous studies focused on the effect of pulsed electromagnetic field dosing on the competing dynamics of calmodulin-dependent nitric oxide/cyclic guanosine monophosphate signaling and phosphodiesterase inhibition of cyclic guanosine monophosphate on pain outcome in breast reduction patients, and the results revealed that pain outcomes were dependent on the rate of increased nitric oxide in tissue.[23,39] Pulsed electromagnetic field signal consisting of a 2-msec burst of 27.12-MHz radiofrequency sinusoidal waves repeating at 2 bursts/s provided adequate dosing to have a net positive effect on postoperative pain reduction.[12,23,39] Adjunctive pulsed electromagnetic fields can serve as an important tool for the surgeon to accelerate the reduction of postsurgical pain and inflammation, decrease patient morbidity and enhance surgical outcomes.[23]

There are still several limitations. First, only 4cd RCTs are included in this meta-analysis, and all of them have a relatively small sample size (n < 100). These may lead to overestimation of the treatment effect in smaller trials. Sec, there is significant heterogeneity among the included studies, which may be caused by different procedures of mammaplasty such as breast augmentation and reduction which produced various pain intensity scales. Finally, different analgesics for pain rescue were used, which may lead to some bias to the pooled effect.

5. Conclusion

Pulsed electromagnetic fields can significantly enhance pain relief in patients with mammaplasty.

Author contributions

XXXX.

Footnotes

Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval, RCTs = randomized controlled trials.

How to cite this article: Zhang L, Ding W, Ji Y. Analgesic effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields for mammaplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Medicine. 2020;99:35(e21449).

Compliance with Ethical Standards.

Research involving human participants and/or animals was not applicable.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

  • [1].Bourazani M, Papageorgiou E, Zarkadas G, et al. The role of muscle relaxants–spasmolytic (Thiocochlicoside) in postoperative pain management after mastectomy and breast reconstruction. APJCP 2019;20:743. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Colwell AS, Taylor EM. Recent advances in implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;145:421e–32e.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Sala-Blanch X, Cohen AS, López-Pantaleon L, et al. Analgesic efficacy of modified pectoral block plus serratus plane block in breast augmentation surgery: a randomised, controlled, triple-blind clinical trial. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 2019;66:62–71.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Parsa FD, Pavlosky KK, Harbison G, et al. Effect of preoperative patient education on opioid consumption and well-being in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;145:316e–23e.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Hetta DF, Mohamed MA, Mohammad MF. Analgesic efficacy of pregabalin in acute postmastectomy pain: placebo controlled dose ranging study. J Clin Anesth 2016;34:303–9.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].De Oliveira GS, Jr, Bialek JM, Nicosia L, et al. Lack of association between breast reconstructive surgery and the development of chronic pain after mastectomy: a propensity matched retrospective cohort analysis. Breast 2014;23:329–33.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Hozumi J, Egi M, Sugita S, et al. Dose of intraoperative remifentanil administration is independently associated with increase in the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting in elective mastectomy under general anesthesia. J Clin Anesth 2016;34:227–31.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Steyaert A, Forget P, Dubois V, et al. Does the perioperative analgesic/anesthetic regimen influence the prevalence of long-term chronic pain after mastectomy? J Clin Anesth 2016;33:20–5.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Lu L, Fine NA. The efficacy of continuous local anesthetic infiltration in breast surgery: reduction mammaplasty and reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;115:1927–34.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Kasimahanti R, Arora S, Bhatia N, et al. Ultrasound-guided single- vs double-level thoracic paravertebral block for postoperative analgesia in total mastectomy with axillary clearance. J Clin Anesth 2016;33:414–21.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Maheshwari P, Maheshwari P. Single-injection vs continuous thoracic paravertebral block for postoperative analgesia after mastectomy. J Clin Anesth 2016;28:90–1.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Pilla AA. Mechanisms and therapeutic applications of time-varying and static magnetic fields. Biological and medical aspects of electromagnetic fields 2007;3: [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Guo L, Kubat NJ, Nelson TR, et al. Meta-analysis of clinical efficacy of pulsed radio frequency energy treatment. Ann Surg 2012;255:457–67.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Ross C, Harrison B. The use of magnetic field for the reduction of inflammation: a review of the history and therapeutic results. Alternative therapies in health and medicine 2013. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Jiang Y, Li J, Lin H, et al. The efficacy of gabapentin in reducing pain intensity and morphine consumption after breast cancer surgery: a meta-analysis. Medicine 2018;97:e11581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Onishi E, Murakami M, Nishino R, et al. Analgesic effect of double-level retrolaminar paravertebral block for breast cancer surgery in the early postoperative period: a placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Tohoku J Exp Med 2018;245:179–85.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Gurkan Y, Aksu C, Kus A, et al. Ultrasound guided erector spinae plane block reduces postoperative opioid consumption following breast surgery: a randomized controlled study. J Clin Anesth 2018;50:65–8.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Marcusa DP, Mann RA, Cron DC, et al. Prescription opioid use among opioid-naive women undergoing immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;140:1081–90.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Hedén P, Pilla AA. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on postoperative pain: a double-blind randomized pilot study in breast augmentation patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008;32:660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Rawe IM, Lowenstein A, Barcelo CR, et al. Control of postoperative pain with a wearable continuously operating pulsed radiofrequency energy device: a preliminary study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012;36:458–63.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Rohde C, Chiang A, Adipoju O, et al. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on interleukin-1β and postoperative pain: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot study in breast reduction patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;125:1620–9.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Sværdborg M, Momsen OH, Damsgaard TE. Pulsed electromagnetic fields for postoperative pain treatment after breast augmentation: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Aesthet Surg J 2016;36:N199–201.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Rohde CH, Taylor EM, Alonso A, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields reduce postoperative interleukin-1β, pain, and inflammation: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in TRAM flap breast reconstruction patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015;135:808e–17e.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25]. G.S. Higgins JPT, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011], The Cochrane Collaboration.(2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org). [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1–2.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:982–9.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Pilla A. Pulsed electromagnetic fields: from first messenger to healing. Electromagnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine 2015. 29–47.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Pilla A, Fitzsimmons R, Muehsam D, et al. Electromagnetic fields as first messenger in biological signaling: application to calmodulin-dependent signaling in tissue repair. Biochim Biophys Acta 2011;1810:1236–45.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Pilla AA. Electromagnetic fields instantaneously modulate nitric oxide signaling in challenged biological systems. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2012;426:330–3.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Faas GC, Raghavachari S, Lisman JE, et al. Calmodulin as a direct detector of Ca 2+ signals. Nature Neurosci 2011;14:301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Ren K, Torres R. Role of interleukin-1β during pain and inflammation. Brain Res Rev 2009;60:57–64.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Pena-Philippides JC, Yang Y, Bragina O, et al. Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) on infarct size and inflammation after cerebral ischemia in mice. Transl Stroke Res 2014;5:491–500.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Pena-Philippides J, Hagberg S, Nemoto E, et al. Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) on LPS-induced chronic inflammation in mice, electromagnetic fields in biology and medicine. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Tepper OM, Callaghan MJ, Chang EI, et al. Electromagnetic fields increase in vitro and in vivo angiogenesis through endothelial release of FGF-2. FASEB J 2004;18:1231–3.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [36].Goto T, Fujioka M, Ishida M, et al. Noninvasive up-regulation of angiopoietin-2 and fibroblast growth factor-2 in bone marrow by pulsed electromagnetic field therapy. J Orthop Sci 2010;15:661–5.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [37].Bragin DE, Statom GL, Hagberg S, et al. Increases in microvascular perfusion and tissue oxygenation via pulsed electromagnetic fields in the healthy rat brain. J Neurosurg 2015;122:1239–47.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [38].Lekhraj R, Cynamon DE, DeLuca SE, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields potentiate neurite outgrowth in the dopaminergic MN9D cell line. J Neurosci Res 2014;92:761–71.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [39].Taylor EM, Hardy KL, Alonso A, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields dosing impacts postoperative pain in breast reduction patients. J Surg Res 2015;193:504–10.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES