Electromyographic Evaluation of the Pelvic Muscles Activity After High-Intensity Focused Electromagnetic Procedure and Electrical Stimulation in Women With Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
Electromyographic Evaluation of the Pelvic Muscles Activity After High-Intensity Focused Electromagnetic Procedure and Electrical Stimulation in Women With Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
This randomised comparative study, published in Sexual Medicine, compared two ways of stimulating pelvic floor muscles, high-intensity focused electromagnetic (HIFEM) technology and standard electrical stimulation, in postpartum women with pelvic floor dysfunction. It measured actual muscle activity using electromyography before and after treatment.
What was studied?
95 postpartum women with pelvic floor dysfunction were treated with either HIFEM technology or standard electrical stimulation. Electromyography measured peak and average contraction strength, endurance, and quality-of-life scores before and after treatment, comparing the two methods directly.
What did they find?
HIFEM produced substantially larger improvements than electrical stimulation across every measure: peak contraction strength improved by about 57 percent versus roughly 7 percent, and over a third of HIFEM patients reported symptoms had resolved completely, compared with 12 percent for electrical stimulation.
Why it matters
This is relevant background evidence for how well electromagnetic and electrical stimulation technologies work at improving measurable muscle activity, even though this study concerns pelvic floor muscles rather than the spine.
Why we included it
It supports a broader principle: neuromuscular stimulation technology can produce real, objectively measured improvements in muscle function generally, evidence relevant across the different applications this kind of technology is used for.
Help us improve your experience (and hopefully your back).
We use cookies to improve the website and show relevant content to people interested in our services.
We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You can choose which categories to allow below. Cookies categorised as Necessary are always active.
We also use third-party cookies for analytics and advertising. These are only stored with your consent. You can update or withdraw consent at any time via the cookie icon at the bottom-left. This site operates under UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR). Cookie Policy • Privacy Policy
Always Active
Necessary cookies are required for core site features including security, network management, and consent storage.
Cookie
Duration
Description
hmdg_cookie_consent
180 days
Stores your cookie consent preferences.
PHPSESSID
Session
WordPress session identifier.
wordpress_logged_in_*
Session
WordPress login authentication.
Functional cookies enable enhanced features such as live chat and remembering preferences.
Cookie
Duration
Description
wp-settings-*
1 year
Stores user interface preferences.
Analytics cookies help us understand visitor behaviour. Controls analytics_storage for Google Analytics 4.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_ga
2 years
Google Analytics — distinguishes users.
_ga_*
2 years
Google Analytics 4 — session persistence.
_gid
24 hours
Google Analytics — distinguishes users.
_gat
1 minute
Google Analytics — throttles request rate.
Performance cookies collect aggregate, anonymous data about site performance.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_gat_gtag_*
1 minute
Google Tag Manager — rate throttle.
Marketing cookies track visits to deliver relevant ads. Controls ad_storage, ad_user_data, and ad_personalization.
What was studied?
95 postpartum women with pelvic floor dysfunction were treated with either HIFEM technology or standard electrical stimulation. Electromyography measured peak and average contraction strength, endurance, and quality-of-life scores before and after treatment, comparing the two methods directly.
What did they find?
HIFEM produced substantially larger improvements than electrical stimulation across every measure: peak contraction strength improved by about 57 percent versus roughly 7 percent, and over a third of HIFEM patients reported symptoms had resolved completely, compared with 12 percent for electrical stimulation.
Why it matters
This is relevant background evidence for how well electromagnetic and electrical stimulation technologies work at improving measurable muscle activity, even though this study concerns pelvic floor muscles rather than the spine.
Why we included it
It supports a broader principle: neuromuscular stimulation technology can produce real, objectively measured improvements in muscle function generally, evidence relevant across the different applications this kind of technology is used for.