Patients and methods: Between March 2013 and January 2015, a total of 32 patients (16 males, 16 females; mean age: 50.1±13.1 years; range, 25 to 75 years) were included. The patients were randomly allocated into two groups. The control group (n=16) received a conventional rehabilitation program consisting of physical modalities, exercises, and occupational therapy, whereas the PEMF group (n=16) received additional PEMF (8 Hz, 3.2 mT) to the affected hand. The primary outcome measure was pain intensity using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcome measures were grip and pinch strength, hand edema, hand dexterity, and hand activities. All patients received 20 therapy sessions (five sessions/week, four weeks in total) and were evaluated before and after the therapy and at the first-month follow-up.

Results: Both groups showed significant improvements in primary and secondary outcomes (p<0.05) after the therapy and at follow-up. When the groups were compared in terms of improvements in assessment parameters, no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in any of the outcomes (p>0.05).

Conclusion: The PEMF in addition to conventional rehabilitation program did not provide additional benefit for pain and hand functions in CRPS-1. Future studies using different application parameters such as frequency, intensity, duration, and route may provide a better understanding of the role of PEMF in CRPS-1 treatment. Keywords : Complex regional pain syndrome, physical therapy, pulsed electromagnetic field, rehabilitation, ultrasonography