Written by Denis Donovan, DPT.
As a Physical Therapist working in South Florida, it is rare a week goes by where I do not see a dozen or so patients with varying degrees of knee osteoarthritis (OA). I will frequently opt to utilize Winback’s TECAR Therapy with these patients, however parameters typically vary based on the activity level and degree of pain the patient is currently in. I have very consistently noticed that utilizing TECAR treatments with these patients can have a profound effect on decreasing their baseline levels of pain as well as allowing them to exercise at a greater intensity. The ability to decrease my patients resting level of pain to allow them to exercise harder is something that I find so important in managing patients with knee OA, especially those whose goal is to avoid having a knee replacement.
A 2024 clinical study published in The Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences sought to examine if the addition of TECAR to the plan of care for patients who have knee OA would improve outcomes compared to conventional therapy alone. This was a randomized two group clinical trial with 54 subjects between the ages of 40-75 years old who were all diagnosed with knee OA. Both groups underwent a structured physical therapy program for knee OA 3x a week for 2 weeks (6 total sessions), with one group also getting TECAR treatments alongside traditional therapy. The results of this study did show that both the TECAR group as well as the non-TECAR group improved in terms of pain (measured with VAS), function and isometric quad strength over time, with no significant between group differences.
That being said there are a couple points to note. The authors did point out that without standardized protocols, it is hard to say with certainty if changing the parameters would have offered a better benefit. The novelty of TECAR Therapy and variability in terms of how it can be administered has made it hard for researchers to agree on the most appropriate way to deliver the energy. In this study, capacitive and resistive currents at .5MHz (500Khz) were applied to the subjects knees for 15 minutes total; 10 of which was capacitive and 5 of which was resistive. The inactive (ground) was placed on the lateral aspect of the opposite calf, between the lateral malleolus and fibular head. Given what we know about TECAR as well as its principles, I would argue that this probably was not the best parameters for this specific condition. I would have liked to see the inactive electrode positioned posteriorly on the treatment calf, rather than on the opposite limb, in order to keep more of the energy in the knee in question. This would allow the current to be delivered anterior to posteriorly through the knee joint. I also would have liked to see the resistive current been the focus, at a lower frequency like the 300Khz that Winback devices are able to offer. This would allow the current to be better honed in the bony arthritic tissue of the knee. I would be curious to see how these parameters would affect the results of this study.
The researchers did acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence that TECAR Therapy can be beneficial in terms of eliminating pain and promoting blood flow in arthritic conditions, as well as increasing muscle oxygenation and enhancing the body’s ability to heal through cellular proliferation. They also acknowledged the need for continued research into TECAR frequencies and standardization of protocols. Lastly, they commented on how using TECAR actively (with exercise or movement) can potentially add an additional benefit, something that I have anecdotally observed in my own practice.
