Introduction 

Postsurgical pain, also referred to as postoperative pain, is the discomfort or pain that arises as a direct result of surgical intervention. A 2023 review by Canadian researchers found that 31% of patients reported moderate to severe pain the day after discharge, and 58% experienced it one to two weeks later (Park et al., 2023). Some patients also experience pain for very prolonged periods of time or even indefinitely after surgery, a condition known as chronic postoperative pain. 

In recent decades, postsurgical pain has typically been managed with anesthetics and pharmaceuticals. The US National Library of Medicine lists five techniques and treatments for managing it, with 'nonpharmacologic treatment' appearing last on the list (Horn et al., 2025). This placement reflects Western medicine’s typical aversion towards drug-free noninvasive treatment methods and the tendency to prioritize drug-based approaches.

In this context, “pharmacological treatment” often refers to the use of opioids. These substances, used for millennia, became widely popular in medical practice over the last fifty years. Initially reserved for terminal patients, their use expanded first to cases of extreme acute pain and later to the treatment of almost any pain beyond mild discomfort. Nowadays, the addictive potential of opioids has become evident, and the ongoing “opioid crisis” has left millions dependent on them. In this context, postsurgical pain management has been recognized as a potential pathway to opioid addiction. (Ballantyne & LaForge, 2007).

Pain management has existed for as long as humans have. As a species, we have developed a plethora of ways to deal with all sorts of pain, with varying degrees of success. (Sabatowski et al., 2004). Although drugs have also played a role in healing and pain relief in ancestral medicine, many traditional approaches, refined over many centuries by different cultures and mostly displaced in the last one by drugs, are entirely noninvasive and drug-free—such as temperature contrast therapy and massage. The modern practice of just masking pain with medication has not always been the norm. 

As our relationship with opium, a plant we have used since before the pyramids were built (Sabatowski et al., 2004), and considered sacred in many cultures, has turned problematic, interest in both rediscovered traditional methods and newly developed noninvasive, drug-free treatments is soaring. Among these emerging approaches, Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy (PEMFT) stands out as a promising option. In this article, we will explore what PEMFT is, how it works, and what current research has to say about it. 

What is PEMF Therapy?

An electromagnetic field (EMF) is a scientific term for light. Light can be described as vibrations in the electric field, which are accompanied by equally strong, perpendicular vibrations in the magnetic field—hence the term "electro-magnetic”. The frequency of light waves determines their characteristics, which can vary drastically. Visible light is just a small portion of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, as shown in the image below:

PEMFT uses extremely low-frequency (ELF) radiation, which ranges from 5 to 300 Hz or pulses per second (Wade, 2013). This range sits at one end of the electromagnetic spectrum, with gamma rays at the opposite extreme. When this energy is emitted in bursts rather than continuously, it is called "pulsating." Now we can understand what PEMFT is: a therapy that applies radio waves in short bursts on a targeted area. As the electric field passes through the tissue, it generates a perpendicular magnetic field, which then interacts with various molecules inside our cells.

PEMFT machines fall into two main categories. In one method, the patient lies on a radiating mat, while in the other, the patient wears a device that targets the specific area of the body to be treated. Both types operate at micro- and millitesla levels (a Tesla is a unit of magnetic flux density, which measures the intensity of the magnetic field per unit area). (Wade, 2013).

This treatment method has been studied for chronic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis, knee arthritis, and persistent pain following lumbar surgery, as well as acute conditions like postoperative pain after C-section, breast augmentation, orthognathic surgery, and more. (Pipitone & Scott, 2001; Richards et al., 1997; Shupak et al., 2006, Friscia et al., 2024; Hedén & Pilla, 2008; Khooshideh et al., 2017; Sorrell et al., 2018).

At the specified frequencies and power, PEMFT is considered safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA, n.d.).

In the introduction, I grouped PEMFT in the “recently developed” category. But is this actually the case? As it turns out, this treatment method has been used in one form or another since the late 1800’s, shortly  after the very discovery of electricity (Gordon, 2007). While it doesn’t qualify as “ancestral” knowledge, it is also not exactly recent. In 1910, it was crossed out as “irregular science” in the US and Canada, but the Central European and Soviet schools continued researching and using it (Gordon, 2007). More recently, China has invested significant resources into its research, considering it a “national priority in biophysics” (Guan, 2000). Since the turn of the millennium, there has been pressure from numerous experts to restore PEMFT as a legitimate therapeutic option in the West (Aarons, 1998; Johnson et al., 2004; Liboff, 2004). 

How PEMFT Works for Pain Relief

A 2013 review found that the exact way PEMFT works is still up for debate. The final effect is likely the result of  different principles and mechanisms working in parallel. One of them is the capacity to increase mitosis (cell division) in chondrocytes, osteoblasts, fibrocytes and endothelial cells (cartilage, bone-making, wound healing, and blood vessel liner cells, respectively). Increased mitosis translates to faster metabolism and ultimately promotes faster healing as cells are replaced at a faster rate. (Wade, 2013).

The same review also found that another important mechanism of PEMFT is the reduction of inflammation. Cells in our bodies, it turns out, communicate not only via hormones, which are chemical signals that bond to specific receptors, but also through cytokines - small proteins that help coordinate cellular activity. Cytokines play a major role in the immune response, including regulating inflammation. Research suggests that PEMFT reduces inflammation by lowering the number of inflammatory cytokines in the body. (Wade, 2013).

The final - and in my view, the most fascinating - way that PEMFT helps reduce postsurgical pain is by supporting intracellular homeostasis. Homeostasis,  from the Greek words “homoios” (same, similar) and “stasis” (standing, position), refers to the ability of organisms to maintain fairly stable internal conditions despite changes in the environment (Davies, 2016). A literature review published in the Journal of Cellular Physiology suggests that PEMFT may help the cells in our bodies retain a balanced state. Specifically, it’s theorized that the magnetic flux helps reduce the electric potential within cells by shuffling around and aligning molecules sensitive to magnetic fields, effectively depolarizing the cell. This process improves the chemical equilibrium between oxidizing agents (ROS free radicals) and antioxidants by “spreading” them out more evenly and increasing the likelihood of them interacting. (Gordon, 2007). 

These three mechanisms—accelerating metabolism and healing, reducing inflammation, and improving the chemical balance within cells—do more than just relieve pain. They improve the body’s general ability to heal. Unlike painkillers, PEMFT has the potential to address the root cause of the problem, rather than merely masking the symptoms. As Gordon (2007), who views electromagnetic pulsed therapy as an integral component of the future of therapy: “We cannot continue to ignore a universal force, particularly one that controls all chemical reactions, all cellular events.”

What the Research Says

To evaluate the effectiveness of PEMFT, we will take a look at four studies in which it was used to treat pain following different surgical procedures. All of these studies were published in scientific journals and were placebo controlled. The full list of references in alphabetical order can be found at the end of the page.

C-Section

This study analyzed the recovery process over seven days in 72 women who underwent a Cesarean section. Half of the participants were given functional PEMFT devices, while the other half received non-functional placebo devices. The results showed that women with the working devices experienced half as much severe pain during the first 24 hours after surgery and used less than half the amount of analgesics. After seven days, 'patients in the active-PEMFT group had better wound healing  with no exudate, erythema, or edema'. (Khooshideh et al., 2017).

Breast Augmentation

This study divided 42 patients into three groups: one group received working devices for both breasts, another group received one working device and one sham device, and the final group received two sham devices. The patients, who did not know which group they belonged to, assessed the pain they felt in each breast. The results were quite clear: over the course of seven days, both pain and analgesic use decreased three times faster in breasts with working devices. (Hedén & Pilla, 2008).

Chronic postoperative pain following lumbar surgery

This study examined the effects of PEMFT at different frequencies and included a control group with sham devices. Since it focused on patients experiencing continuous pain long after surgery, it tracked results over 60 days—much longer than the other studies mentioned here. The findings are promising: compared to the control (sham device) group, patients in the group using a 42μs pulse width reported 15% less lower back pain and 20% less leg pain. Interestingly, the group with devices operating at a 38μs pulse width experienced more pain than the placebo group. Based on this, the authors emphasize the need for further research to optimize PEMFT settings for specific applications (Sorrell et al., 2018).

Orthognathic (jaw) surgery

This final seven-day study focused on a procedure known for its particularly uncomfortable recovery process. Once again, PEMFT was found to significantly speed up recovery. Patients who received PEMFT in addition to standard postoperative care had less swelling compared to those who received only standard treatment. They also reported less pain on days 2 and 4 after surgery, though by day 7, the difference in pain levels between the two groups was no longer statistically significant.

Conclusion: Benefits of PEMFT for Postsurgical Pain

To wrap it up, let’s summarize the benefits of PEMFT for managing postsurgical pain:

• Effective for various procedures – Research shows that PEMFT not only reduces pain but also accelerates healing and decreases inflammation following a variety of procedures.

• Drug-free and non-invasive – Unlike many conventional pain management methods, PEMFT does not rely on medication or invasive procedures.

• Compatible with other treatments – While effective on its own, PEMFT can also be used alongside other pain management strategies.

• Convenient and portable – In most cases, PEMFT devices are compact and can be used at home, making treatment more accessible.

With all of this in mind, PEMFT appears as a very promising alternative to the pain management methods western medicine has been using in the last decades. As always, consult your physician to ensure PEMFT is safe for you, especially if you have any conditions that might contraindicate its use.

References

Aarons R. 1998. Tissue Healing. NIEHS/EMFRAPID Symposium 3. Available from http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/Symposium3/Tissue_Heal.html

Ballantyne, J. C., & LaForge, K. S. (2007). Opioid dependence and addiction during opioid treatment of chronic pain. PAIN, 129(3), 235–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2007.03.028

Davies, K. J. A. (2016). Adaptive homeostasis. Molecular Aspects of Medicine, 49, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mam.2016.04.007

FDA. (n.d.). Product Classification. Retrieved February 18, 2025, from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm?ID=MBQ

Friscia, M., Abbate, V., De Fazio, G. R., Sani, L., Spinelli, R., Troise, S., Bonavolontà, P., Committeri, U., Califano, L., & Orabona, G. D. (2024). Pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) as a valid tool in orthognathic surgery to reduce post-operative pain and swelling: A prospective study. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 28(3), 1287–1294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-024-01256-9

Gordon, G. A. (2007). Designed electromagnetic pulsed therapy: Clinical applications. Journal of Cellular Physiology, 212(3), 579–582. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.21025

Guan, Z., Long, Y., Cai, G., & Yang, B. (2000). [The research progress of using electromagnetic technology in treatment of bone diseases]. Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi, 17(2), 226–230. (Article in Mandarin, abstract in English).

Hedén, P., & Pilla, A. A. (2008). Effects of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields on Postoperative Pain: A Double-Blind Randomized Pilot Study in Breast Augmentation Patients. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 32(4), 660–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-008-9169-z

Horn, R., Hendrix, J. M., & Kramer, J. (2025). Postoperative Pain Control. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK544298/

Johnson MT, Waite LR, Nindl G. 2004. Non-invasive treatment of inflammation using electromagnetic fields: current and emerging therapeutic potential. Biomed Sci Instrum 40:469–474.

Khooshideh, M., Latifi Rostami, S. S., Sheikh, M., Ghorbani Yekta, B., & Shahriari, A. (2017). Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields for Postsurgical Pain Management in Women Undergoing Cesarean Section: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-controlled Trial. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 33(2), 142. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000000376

Liboff A. 2004. Toward an electromagnetic paradigm for biology and medicine. J Altern Complement Med 10:41–47.

Park, R., Mohiuddin, M., Arellano, R., Pogatzki-Zahn, E., Klar, G., & Gilron, I. (2023). Prevalence of postoperative pain after hospital discharge: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Reports, 8(3), e1075. https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000001075

Pipitone, N., & Scott, D. L. (2001). Magnetic pulse treatment for knee osteoarthritis: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 17(3), 190–196. https://doi.org/10.1185/0300799039117061

Richards, T. L., Lappin, M. S., Acosta-Urquidi, J., Kraft, G. H., Heide, A. C., Lawrie, F. W., Merrill, T. E., Melton, G. B., & Cunningham, C. A. (1997). Double-blind study of pulsing magnetic field effects on multiple sclerosis. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (New York, N.Y.), 3(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.1997.3.21

Shupak, N., McKay, J., Nielson, W., Rollman, G., Prato, F., & Thomas, A. (2006). Exposure to a Specific Pulsed Low-Frequency Magnetic Field: A Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study of Effects on Pain Ratings in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Fibromyalgia Patients. Pain Research & Management : The Journal of the Canadian Pain Society = Journal de La Société Canadienne Pour Le Traitement de La Douleur, 11, 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1155/2006/842162

Sorrell, R. G., Muhlenfeld, J., Moffett, J., Stevens, G., & Kesten, S. (2018). Evaluation of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy for the treatment of chronic postoperative pain following lumbar surgery: A pilot, double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial. Journal of Pain Research, 11, 1209–1222. https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S164303

Wade, B. (2013). A Review of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field (PEMF) Mechanisms at a Cellular Level: A Rationale for Clinical Use. American Journal of Health Research, 1(3), 51. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajhr.20130103.13