- Email: [email protected]
Tissue electrical stimulation
smooth muscle pre aration. This work was supported by Grampian Hea Pth Board Endowment fund. Michael Jamieson and Robert Selbie Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Department of Medicine and Therapeutics and Department of Biomedical Physics and Bioengineering, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB9 2ZD, UK
1. Orrego F. Criteria for the identification of central neuro-
transmitters and their applicaton to studies with some nerve tissue preparations in vitro. Neuroscience 1979; 4: 1037-57. 2. Bures J, Petran M, Zachar J. ElectrophysioLogicalmethodr in biological research. New York: Academic Press, 1967: 44. 3. Lamb FS, Webb C. Vascular effects of free radicals generated by electrical stimulation. Am J Physiol 1984; 247 (Heart Circ. Physiol. 16): H709-H714. 4. JamiesonMD, Selbie RJ. Measuring the resistivity of tissue bath solutions. Clin Sci 1988; 75 (Suppl 19): 16P-17P.
Tissue electrical stimulation Dear Sir, The status of the varying forms of electrical stimulation of tissues has been bedevilled by exaggerated claims and lack of science for the last 20 years. The article by Lightwood u Biomed Eng 1989; 11: 42936) purporting to be a review of the sub’ect compounds the elements of pseudoscience an d mumbojumbo from which those of us who have been working in this field for years are desperately trying to move away. The facts of the matter are that there is a large and well refereed literature based both on organ and cellular changes in controlled experiments and the mediation of such effects through cell membrane
perturbation and ion exchange. As a practising orthopaedic surgeon who has been involved intimately in the man ement of nonunions and was a founder mema%er of the BioElectrical Repair and Growth Society, I must object in the strongest ossible terms to the use of the phrase ‘back pain syn c!rome’ and the implication that such a broadly based set of symptoms are universally amenable to one therapeutic modality.
Department
of Orthopaedic
J.B. King and Traumatic Surgery The London Hosnital Whitechapel London El lBB, UK
J, Biomed. Eng. 1990, Vol. 12, March
173
1. Orrego F. Criteria for the identification of central neuro-
transmitters and their applicaton to studies with some nerve tissue preparations in vitro. Neuroscience 1979; 4: 1037-57. 2. Bures J, Petran M, Zachar J. ElectrophysioLogicalmethodr in biological research. New York: Academic Press, 1967: 44. 3. Lamb FS, Webb C. Vascular effects of free radicals generated by electrical stimulation. Am J Physiol 1984; 247 (Heart Circ. Physiol. 16): H709-H714. 4. JamiesonMD, Selbie RJ. Measuring the resistivity of tissue bath solutions. Clin Sci 1988; 75 (Suppl 19): 16P-17P.
Tissue electrical stimulation Dear Sir, The status of the varying forms of electrical stimulation of tissues has been bedevilled by exaggerated claims and lack of science for the last 20 years. The article by Lightwood u Biomed Eng 1989; 11: 42936) purporting to be a review of the sub’ect compounds the elements of pseudoscience an d mumbojumbo from which those of us who have been working in this field for years are desperately trying to move away. The facts of the matter are that there is a large and well refereed literature based both on organ and cellular changes in controlled experiments and the mediation of such effects through cell membrane
perturbation and ion exchange. As a practising orthopaedic surgeon who has been involved intimately in the man ement of nonunions and was a founder mema%er of the BioElectrical Repair and Growth Society, I must object in the strongest ossible terms to the use of the phrase ‘back pain syn c!rome’ and the implication that such a broadly based set of symptoms are universally amenable to one therapeutic modality.
Department
of Orthopaedic
J.B. King and Traumatic Surgery The London Hosnital Whitechapel London El lBB, UK
J, Biomed. Eng. 1990, Vol. 12, March
173