|
For returning customers: |
|
|
The History of Microcurrent Stimulation
In the 1830's, Carlos Matteucci, proved that an
electrical current was generated by injured tissue. Existence of wound currents
was first experimentally observed by Dubois-Reymond in 1843, where approximately
1 microampere of current was measured from a wound in human skin. Illingsworth
and Barker, (1980) some 120 years later measured the current generated by the
amputated stump of a child's finger tip. These stump currents were found to be
within the range of 10-30 microamps per square centimeter. Their findings were
repeated by several researchers (Borgens et al 1980; Barker, Jaffe, and Vanable
1982;) although only recently have we been able to understand the implications
of these findings and to therapeutically apply these microcurrents. Microcurrent
first gained popularity in treatment of wounds, nonunion fractures and bone
implants, where it has become an accepted procedure with orthopedic surgeons.
Most of the published research on the effects of microcurrents on soft-tissue
injury have described the accelerated healing of skin ulcers and associated
suppression of bacterial growth.
One of the first studies documenting the positive effects of microcurrent
stimulation on wound healing and bone fractures was the team of Wolcott, et al,
in 1969. These researchers applied stimulation in the range of 200 - 800
microamps to a wide variety of wounds. A control group was treated with ordinary
wound care methods. The treated group showed 200 - 350% faster healing rates
than controls, with stronger tensile strength of scar tissue and antibacterial
effects in infected wounds. Gault and Gatens used a similar procedure in 1975 -
1976 on patients with diagnosis including quadriplegia, CVA, brain tumor,
peripheral vascular disease, burns, diabetes, TB, fracture and amputation. Their
results demonstrated healing times in the treated group about half that of the
controls. Many other researchers followed variations of these models and
published similar results.
Microamp stimulation has also been called bio-stimulation or bio-electric
therapy because of its ability to stimulate cellular physiology and growth. In a
study with important implications for microcurrent electrotherapy, Cheng et al
(1982) studied the effects of electric currents of various intensities on three
variables critical to the healing process: At 500 microamps, ATP generation (or
cellular energy production) increased about 500% and amino acid transport was
increased by 30 to 40 percent above control levels using 100 to 500 microamps.
When currents were increased to the milliampere range, ATP generation was
depleted, amino acid uptake was reduced by 20-73 percent and protein synthesis
was inhibited by as much as 50%. These findings suggest that the higher milliamp
currents inhibit healing whereas the lower microampere currents promote healing.
Additional studies with isolated tissue or cultured cells provide compelling
evidence that the intracellular rates of ATP re-synthesis, protein synthesis and
DNA replication are increased as a result of direct electrical stimulation of
human fibroblasts. Weak stimuli increase physiologic activity and very strong
stimuli inhibit or abolish activity. -Arnold-Shulz Law (Dorland 1985) Other
studies have demonstrated the effects of microcurrent in accelerating healing of
bone, tendon repairs, and collagen remodeling. A Nobel prize went to two German
scientists in 1991 for their work in detecting subtle electrical currents in all
types of cell membranes throughout the body. This study opened the way for
greater understanding of the mechanisms through which externally applied
currents can affect organic functions.
William Stanish, M.D., physician for the Canadian Olympic team, found that
implanted electrodes delivering 10-20 microamps of electrical current hastened
recovery from ruptured ligaments and tendons. Using microcurrent stimulation,
Stanish shortened the normal 18-month recovery period to only 6 months. (Stanish
1984).
The first commercial device outputting microcurrent stimulation was the
Dermatron, developed in the 1960's by Dr. Reinhold Voll of Germany. Although
this device was primarily used for electro-diagnostic testing, it was also used
to apply therapeutic microcurrent stimulation to the body. Through the research
of Dr. Voll and his colleagues, the following effects of microcurrent on the
body were documented: 1) Spasmolysis of smooth muscles of the circulatory,
lymphatic and hollow organ systems. 2) Tonification of elastic fibers, for
example, increasing lung capacity in emphysema patients. 3) Reduction of
inflammatory processes through reducing infiltrative, proliferative, and
exudative processes. 4) Reduction of degenerative process by restoring
diffusion-osmotic equilibrium. 5) Restoration of polarization to the nerves. 6)
Stimulus of ATP function in freshly injured striated muscle.
To obtain these effects, microcurrents in the 0.5 - 1.0 Hz range were applied to
whole limbs or selected acupuncture points. Voll and his colleagues were able to
chart specific frequencies in that range that had pronounced effects on
different tissue systems. This very low frequency range, which is resonant with
the normal electrical activity of the human body and the frequency of the earth,
is the main domain of modern microcurrent therapy.
Another explanation of the efficacy of microcurrent is through comparison to
acupuncture. Many of the effects of acupuncture have been documented in the
Journal of the American Medical Association. A meridian, or energy communication
system connecting all parts of the body, has been described by traditional
Chinese and Japanese acupuncture. The work of Becker and Nordenstrom in
particular recognize the action of subtle electrical currents, via the
perineural cells and circulatory system, respectively, in explaining at least
part of the meridian phenomenon.
Needle acupuncture is the original microcurrent therapy, as traditional
acupuncture needles generate measurable electrical charges when twirled in the
skin by a doctor's fingers, and needles left in tend to drain of excess electric
charge from tense or inflamed tissue. Modern microcurrent therapy offers a
simplified and non-hazardous method for practitioners to offer the benefits of
acupuncture stimulation to their patients.
|
Credit to:
|
 |