Comprehensive Approach to Personalized Medicine into Chronic Musculoskeletal Diseases

The “BaR” Concept
  • Dalibor Krpan
Part of the Europeanization and Globalization book series (EAG, volume 5)


Chronic musculoskeletal diseases, well known as osteoporosis and osteoarthritis, are among the most common diseases. Despite various pharmacological treatments, the problem of osteoporosis is not yet solved nor decreased. Drug’s adverse event and fractures after long termed pharmacotherapy indicate a need for new treatment modalities.

Regarding osteoarthritis, conventional clinical practice is based on symptomatic treatments with limited and temporary effect and in the severe cases surgically replacement of knee or hip with endo-prosthesis, are often left as the only option. There is no any prevention or treatment with the aim of improving the quality and functional ability of skeleton as a whole.

However, because of the intensive scientific research in the last two decades, significant advance in understanding of skeleton physiology, influence of metabolic and biomechanical factors on bone has been achieved. Those, as well as development of new technologies and treatment modalities, provide us with better possibilities for treatment and prevention of complications in chronic skeleton diseases. But, it also indicates a necessity of changing the clinical approach towards the principles of personalized and integrative medicine with the goal of improving bio-mechanical and metabolic balance, stimulating bone formation and cartilage regeneration, with consequent improvement of the functional capacity of the skeleton as a whole.


  1. Auerbach B et al (2005) Prospective study over a period of 1 year in respect to the effectiveness of the MBST® - Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Therapy as used during the conservative therapy of Gonarthrosis; Orthopadische Praxis, Taucha. Lecture, Poster Presentation at the 1st Collective Congress Orthopedic - Accident Surgery, 19–22 October 2005, Berlin. Published in: Congress Catalogue, Abstract, Poster R2-446Google Scholar
  2. Crilly RG et al (2014) Comparison of hip fracture and osteoporosis medication prescription rates across Canadian provinces. Osteoporos Int 25:205–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Diegel I et al (2007) Decrease in extracellular collagen crosslinking after NMR magnetic field application in skin fibroblasts. J Int Fed Med Biol Eng 45(1):91–97Google Scholar
  4. Duque N (2014) Ostéoporose: traitement et soins pharmaceutiques [Osteoporosis: treatment and pharmaceutical care] (French Article). J Pharm Belg 2:14–24Google Scholar
  5. Erviti J et al (2013) Oral bisphosphonates may not decrease hip fracture risk in elderly Spanish women: a nested case-control study. BMJ Open 3. pii: e002084. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fagerer N (2007) Use of magnetic resonance as new therapy options for Osteoarthritis. Arzt & Praxis 927:180–182Google Scholar
  7. Frobose U et al (2000) Evaluation of the effectiveness three-dimensional pulsating electromagnetic fields of the MultiBioSignalTherapy (MBST®) on the regeneration of cartilage structures. Orthopadische Praxis 8:510–515Google Scholar
  8. Handschuh T, Melzer C (2008) Behandlung der Osteoporose mit MBST® KernSpin. ORTHODOC 5(Sonderdruck):1–4Google Scholar
  9. He J et al (2014) Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on the expression of NFATc1 and CAII in mouse osteoclast-like cells. Aging Clin Exp Res 29:PMID: 24869857Google Scholar
  10. Jansen H et al (2006) Does have low-energy NMR an effect on gonarthrosis in rabbits. In: 52nd Annual Meeting Orthopedic Research Society. Chicago, March 2006. Scientific lectureGoogle Scholar
  11. Jing D et al (2014) Pulsed electromagnetic fields partially preserve bone mass, microarchitecture, and strength by promoting bone formation in hindlimb-suspended rats. J Bone Miner Res 29(10):2250–2261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kamel HK (2007) Update on osteoporose management in long-term care: focus on bisphosphonates. J Am Med Dir Assoc 8:434–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kanis JA et al (2008) A reference standard for the description of osteoporosis. Bone 42:467–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krpan D (2003) Tae do, exercises for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Repro-Color, ZagrebGoogle Scholar
  15. Krpan D (2011) MBST – nuclear magnetic resonance therapy the new possibility of osteoarthritis and osteoporosis treatment. Balneoclimatologia, Dijagnostica I Lecenje Osteoporoze 35:61–66Google Scholar
  16. Krpan D, Kullich W (2017) Nuclear magnetic resonance therapy (MBST) in the treatment of osteoporosis - case report study. Clin Cases Min Bone Metabol XIV(2):237–240Google Scholar
  17. Krpan D et al (2015) Non-pharmaceutical treatment of osteoporosis with Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Therapy (NMR-Therapy). Periodicum biologorum, 117 (1): 160 -165Google Scholar
  18. Kullich W (2014) New active principle: therapy with nuclear magnetic resonance. Scientific lecture at the “Special pain therapy” course, Pain diploma of the Austrian Medical Chamber, Leogang, Austria, 19th June 2014Google Scholar
  19. Kullich W, Ausserwinkler M (2008) Functional improvement in osteoarthritis of finger joints with therapeutic use of nuclear magnetic resonance. Orthopädische Praxis 44(6):287–290Google Scholar
  20. Kullich W et al (2005) MBST®-Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Therapy improves rehabilitation outcome in patients with low back pain; The EULAR Journal. Annals of the rheumatic diseases, Annual European Congress of Rheumatology, June 8–11, 2005, p 519Google Scholar
  21. Kullich W et al (2006a) The effect of MBST®-Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Therapy with a complex 3-dimensional electromagnetic nuclear resonance field on patients with low back pain. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 19:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kullich W et al (2006b) Additional outcome improvement in the rehabilitation of chronic low back pain after nuclear resonance therapy. Rheumatologia 1:7–12Google Scholar
  23. Kullich W et al (2013a) One year survey with multicenter data of more than 4500 patients with degenerative rheumatic disease treated with therapeutic nuclear magnetic resonance. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 26:93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kullich W et al (2013b) Long-term efficacy of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Therapy on Osteoarthritis provided by metacentric data of more than 4500 patients. LBG meeting for Health Sciences 2013, December 2, 2013, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  25. Mařík I et al (2014) Application of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Therapy as treatment of degenerative diseases of loco motor system. 19th Kubat’s Podiatric day, 08. März 2014, PragGoogle Scholar
  26. Oliva R, Egg M (2017) Effect of nuclear magnetic resonance on the circadian clock and the hypoxia signaling pathway. Institute of Zoology, University of Innsbruck, Austria, poster on the scientific meetingGoogle Scholar
  27. Steinecker-Frohnwieser B et al (2009) Influence of NMR therapy on metabolism of osteosarcoma and chondrosarcoma cell lines. Bone 44(2):295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Steinecker-Frohnwieser B et al (2013) Intracellular calcium is influenced by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Therapy (NMRT) in Cal-78 chondrosarcoma cells. L. Journal für Mineralstoffwechsel 20(4):161–162Google Scholar
  29. Steinecker-Frohnwieser B et al (2014) The influence of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Therapy (NMRT) and Interleukin IL1-β stimulation on Cal 78 chondrosarcoma cells and C28/I2 chondrocytes. J Orthop Rheumatol 1(3):9Google Scholar
  30. Temiz-Artmann A et al (2005) NMR in vitro effects on proliferation, apoptosis, and viability of human chondrocytes and osteoblasts. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 27(5):391–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhou J et al (2013) Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulates osteoprotegerin and reduces RANKL expression in ovariectomized rats. Rheumatol Int 33(5):1135–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dalibor Krpan
    • 1
  1. 1.Polyclinic K-centerZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations