At Cornwall Physio, we’re proud to offer Extracorporeal Magnetotransduction Therapy (EMTT) – an advanced regenerative treatment that’s transforming outcomes for patients with chronic pain, injuries, and degenerative conditions. While several electromagnetic therapies exist, EMTT offers several advantages that make it particularly effective for challenging musculoskeletal problems. This article compares EMTT with other electromagnetic therapies and highlights its evidence-based benefits.
What is Regenerative Therapy?
Regenerative therapy aims to repair damaged tissues, reduce inflammation, and improve cellular health by targeting the root causes of pain and dysfunction. These approaches promote long-term healing rather than simply masking symptoms[1]. Among the most promising regenerative technologies are EMTT, PEMF, and MBST – each with different mechanisms, capabilities, and clinical applications.
Comparing EMTT, PEMF, and MBST
1. EMTT (Extracorporeal Magnetotransduction Therapy)
EMTT represents the latest advancement in electromagnetic therapy, utilising high-energy magnetic fields with specific technical parameters:
- Magnetic Field Strength: 80-150 millitesla (mT)
- Oscillation Frequency: 100-300 kHz
- Penetration Depth: Up to 18 cm
- Transduction Power: Exceeding 60,000 Tesla/second[2][3]
Key clinical advantages:
- Deep Tissue Access: EMTT’s high field strength enables it to reach deep-seated structures that other therapies may not effectively target
- Comprehensive Biological Response: Research shows EMTT stimulates multiple cellular pathways simultaneously, enhancing both anti-inflammatory effects and tissue regeneration[2,1]
- Bone and Joint Applications: Particularly effective for challenging conditions including bone healing, tendinopathies, and joint disorders[4]
At Cornwall Physio, we’ve witnessed exceptional results with EMTT for bone healing and other deep tissue conditions, aligning with the latest research findings.
2. PEMF (Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields)
By comparison, PEMF technology operates with different parameters:
- Magnetic Field Strength: Typically 1-10 mT
- Frequency Range: Generally 1-10 kHz
- Penetration Depth: More limited than EMTT due to lower field strength[3:1][5]
Comparative considerations:
- Surface Effect: The lower field strength generally limits PEMF’s effectiveness to more superficial tissues
- Treatment Duration: Often requires prolonged application due to lower field intensity
- Established Applications: Primarily validated for bone fractures, surface-level pain management, and certain inflammatory conditions[6]
While PEMF has demonstrated clinical benefits for certain conditions, its lower field strength and penetration depth may limit its efficacy for deeper tissue problems compared to EMTT.
3. MBST (Magnetic Resonance Therapy)
MBST employs a different approach with these parameters:
- Magnetic Field Strength: Approximately 1 mT
- Working Principle: Uses principles similar to MRI but at much lower field strengths
- Applications: Primarily focused on cartilage and joint conditions[7]
Comparative aspects:
- Specialised Focus: Designed primarily for early-stage osteoarthritis and localised cartilage conditions
- Treatment Range: Less versatile for addressing multiple tissue types or deep structures
Why EMTT Stands Out: Evidence-Based Advantages
Superior Penetration and Power
The fundamental advantage of EMTT is its significantly higher magnetic field strength (8-15 times stronger than typical PEMF systems), which enables effective treatment of deep-seated conditions[3:2]. This is particularly important for structures like the hip joint, spine, and deeper bone tissues that other electromagnetic therapies struggle to reach effectively.
Research confirms this technical superiority translates into clinical benefits. A 2024 laboratory study published in Biomedicines demonstrated that EMTT significantly enhances all phases of bone formation – from cellular activation to actual mineralisation – offering potential for accelerating fracture healing and improving outcomes in challenging cases[2:2].
Strong Clinical Evidence
EMTT’s effectiveness is supported by high-quality research:
For Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy: A prospective randomized controlled trial by Klüter et al. (2018) involving 86 patients demonstrated that EMTT combined with extracorporeal shockwave therapy produced significantly greater pain reduction and functional improvement compared to shockwave therapy with sham-EMTT. The benefits were particularly notable at 24-week follow-up, demonstrating lasting effects[9].
For Low Back Pain: A randomised controlled trial by Krath and Gerdesmeyer (2017) found that patients receiving EMTT in addition to conventional therapy showed significantly better improvements in both pain levels and disability scores compared to conventional therapy alone. These improvements persisted at 12-week follow-up[10].
For Bone Healing: Emerging research demonstrates EMTT’s ability to upregulate key genes involved in bone formation (including SP7 and RUNX2) by over sevenfold compared to control groups, with enhanced collagen synthesis and mineralization confirmed through multiple laboratory techniques[2:3]. This cellular-level evidence helps explain the positive clinical outcomes we’ve observed in bone healing cases at Cornwall Physio.
Practical Advantages
EMTT also offers practical benefits for patients:
- Efficient Treatment Protocol: Typically requires fewer sessions than PEMF for similar conditions
- Non-Invasive Application: Completely painless with no recovery time needed
- Complementary Therapy: Works effectively alongside other treatments like physical therapy and exercise
Clinical Applications at Cornwall Physio
At Cornwall Physio, we’ve found EMTT particularly effective for:
Lower Back Pain and Disc injuries
Our patients with chronic low back and acute back pain flare-ups, have experienced significant relief with EMTT, supported by randomised controlled trial evidence showing substantial improvements in both pain and function[10:1].
Bone Healing Challenges
We’ve witnessed remarkable results using EMTT for delayed unions, stress fractures, and post-surgical bone healing. This aligns with research showing EMTT stimulates osteoblast activity and enhances matrix mineralisation – crucial processes for bone repair[2:4].
Chronic Tendinopathies
For resistant tendon conditions like rotator cuff tendinopathy and Achilles tendinopathy, EMTT’s deep penetration helps target these structures more effectively than surface-level therapies. Research supports this application, with clinical trials demonstrating significant improvements in both pain and function[9:1][11].
Persistent Joint Pain
EMTT’s ability to reach deep joint structures makes it valuable for osteoarthritis and joint-related pain, particularly in larger joints like the hip and shoulder where depth of penetration is crucial. We’ve seen incredible results with Frozen shoulders and arthritic knees and hips.
Making an Informed Choice
When considering electromagnetic therapies, the evidence points to EMTT as an excellent choice for:
- Conditions involving deeper tissues beyond 3-5 cm from the surface
- Bone healing challenges and osteoporosis
- Chronic or acute tendinopathies
- Joint pain that hasn’t responded to more superficial treatments
While all three technologies (EMTT, PEMF, and MBST) have their place in modern rehabilitation, EMTT’s superior penetration depth, higher field strength, and growing body of clinical evidence make it particularly valuable for challenging musculoskeletal conditions.
Experience EMTT at Cornwall Physio
We’re proud to offer this advanced regenerative technology to our patients. If you’re struggling with chronic pain, delayed healing, or a degenerative condition, EMTT could be the breakthrough you’ve been looking for.
Contact Cornwall Physio today to schedule a consultation and discover if EMTT is the right approach for your condition.
References
- Pallotti F, Plastina P, Cirillo F, et al. (2022). “Regenerative medicine: an overview.” Int J Mol Sci. 23(11):6186. doi: 10.3390/ijms23116186
- Gerdesmeyer L, Tübel J, Obermeier A, Burgkart R. (2024). “Extracorporeal Magnetotransduction Therapy as a New Form of Electromagnetic Wave Therapy: From Gene Upregulation to Accelerated Matrix Mineralization in Bone Healing.” Biomedicines. 12(10):2269. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines12102269
- Storz Medical. (2021). “EMTT vs. PEMF.” EMTT Blog. Retrieved from https://www.emtt.info/emtt-blog/get-ready-for-emtt-2-emtt-vs-pemf-1
- Knobloch K, Saxena A, Schaden W. (2024). “Combined Electromagnetic and Electrohydraulic Focused ESWT and EMTT for Delayed Calcaneal Union in an Adolescent Parkour Athlete-A Case Report.” Open Access J Sports Med. 15:67-73. doi: 10.2147/OAJSM.S460370
- Markov MS. (2007). “Expanding use of pulsed electromagnetic field therapies.” Electromagn Biol Med. 26(3):257-74. doi: 10.1080/15368370701580806
- Bassett CA. (1989). “Fundamental and practical aspects of therapeutic uses of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs).” Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 17(5):451-529. Schmidt JK, Debess J, Møller L. (2021). “Magnetic resonance therapy in the treatment of osteoarthritis: A scoping review.” Radiography. 27(3):942-950. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2021.01.007
- Kullich W, Overbeck J, Spiegel HU. (2013). “One-year-survey with multicenter data of more than 4,500 patients with degenerative rheumatic diseases treated with therapeutic nuclear magnetic resonance.” J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 26(1):93-104. doi: 10.3233/BMR-2012-00362
- Klüter T, Krath A, Stukenberg M, et al. (2018). “Electromagnetic transduction therapy and shockwave therapy in 86 patients with rotator cuff tendinopathy: a prospective randomized controlled trial.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 37(4):175-183. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2018.1499030
- Krath A, Gerdesmeyer L. (2017). “Electromagnetic transduction therapy in non-specific low back pain: A prospective randomised controlled trial.” J Orthop. 14(3):410-415. doi:10.1016/j.jor.2017.07.001
- Gerdesmeyer L, Saxena A, Klueter T. (2017). “Electromagnetic transduction therapy for Achilles tendinopathy: a preliminary report on a new technology.” J Foot Ankle Surg. 56(4):964-967.