“You simply need to know what you want and what microcurrent can do; this quickly leads you to avoid working to a fixed formula, but rather to adapt your approach on an ongoing basis” (Inge Metag, 2020)

Physiotherapist Inge Metag sums up this kind of information – described in detail – when it comes to working with microcurrent.

In the past, physiotherapist Inge Metag was able to ‘explore’ the field of neurology using microcurrent in collaboration with a geriatric department. This resulted in a study involving nearly 100 patients over a period of almost three years.

But hear for yourself what microcurrent has to offer in neurology.

00:00:00
Patrick Walitschek: Welcome to a new podcast from LuXXaMed GmbH. My name is Patrick Walitschek and this week I’ve brought you another really exciting episode: An interview with physiotherapist Inge Metag, who has had excellent experience working with microcurrent in the field of neurology for many years and who, in the past, also conducted a study – or rather, a patient observation study – involving nearly 100 patients on the topic of ‘Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis’. Inge Metag will tell you how she uses microcurrent specifically in neurology, how she uses it in general, and what her experiences have been – particularly in the context of hospitals, that is, applying the technique in a clinical setting in collaboration with geriatric departments. And the approaches she describes there are certainly very, very fascinating.

00:00:54
Patrick Walitschek: This interview consists of two parts in total: you’re now listening to the first part of the interview, and I really don’t want to keep you in suspense any longer, because I believe that the wealth of information, experience and approaches Inge has gathered from her work over recent years – ranging from the Clinic-Master to the LuXXaMed – and which she has developed for herself and her patients, is truly very, very fascinating. So I really don’t want to keep you in suspense any longer. Next week, of course, we’ll have the second part of the interview, which will focus more specifically on applications in neurology, and with that I’ll say: Enjoy this interview!

00:01:48
Patrick Walitschek: A very warm welcome, Inge, to our podcast on the topic of ‘microcurrent, Luxxamed, BCR therapy’ and so on. I’m really pleased that this has worked out. And yes, I’d say perhaps you could briefly introduce yourself to the listeners – who you are, where you’re from, what you do – just a rough outline.

00:02:11
Inge Metag: Yes, I’d be happy to. My name is Inge Metag. I work in physiotherapy and qualified 45 years ago now. That means I’m in my 46th year of professional experience and, having spent a long time working on the inpatient ward of an orthopaedic clinic, I became familiar with general electrotherapy relatively quickly and, by delving deeper into the various methods available there, I also became familiar with microcurrent or microstimulation therapy relatively quickly and then looked into its history a little. Not least because its origins can certainly be traced back to sport and sports medicine, and I’ve also had quite a lot to do with injured or accident-prone athletes. That was, so to speak, my first step into the field.

00:03:15
Patrick Walitschek: Okay, okay, fascinating. And you’re based at a clinic in Kiel. Generally speaking, how did you find the approach to therapies such as microcurrent, let’s say, within a hospital setting? After all, most practitioners work in private practices, owner-run practices. What’s it like for you, working with this form of therapy in a hospital setting?

00:03:42
Inge Metag: Well, I’m currently working at a large hospital in Kiel. We look after both the inpatient ward and a large attached physiotherapy outpatient clinic. There are several ways we can approach this. It’s not uncommon for patients in the inpatient wards – such as ‘Oncology’, ‘Trauma Surgery’, and in some cases ‘Internal Medicine’, are certainly candidates for suitable micro-stimulation therapies. We familiarise them with the method on the wards, so to speak, and of course also see whether it’s possible to get them interested in outpatient therapy. The question of the effort involved is always a key consideration here. It is not uncommon for patients living in the immediate vicinity of the hospital to be very keen on continuing treatment on an outpatient basis once they have learnt about the method and experienced its effects. And at this stage, it does happen that patients receive outpatient care from us until they achieve the results they expect.

00:05:07
Patrick Walitschek: Okay, so that means they come to you, so to speak, in the ‘Physical Therapy’ department and continue their treatment there – is that correct?

00:05:16
Inge Metag: They come to the physiotherapy practice, which is very large and very modern, and are treated with micro-stimulation therapy, which covers the entire field of electrotherapy and is particularly complex because we make full use of our equipment.

00:05:37
Patrick Walitschek: Right, right. And do you have a sort of guideline for yourself regarding which conditions – or, generally speaking – where you specifically use microcurrent? Is there such a thing?

00:05:53
Inge Metag: Well, we do have a sort of common thread running through our work. We find it particularly rewarding to treat patients undergoing oncological treatment who have completed their chemotherapy but are still struggling quite a bit with the after-effects of the treatment. These aren’t always easily managed with medication alone. It’s often a case of polyneuropathies, which we treat from immediately after chemotherapy up to a maximum of two years, after which the patients generally no longer experience these polyneuropathic symptoms. It’s also worth noting that, once treatment has begun in an inpatient setting, a single session per week is usually sufficient when continuing treatment on an outpatient basis.

00:06:54
Patrick Walitschek: Okay. And specifically regarding post-cancer patients with polyneuropathies: do they receive any other treatment, or do you actually only use microcurrent therapy?

00:07:08
Inge Metag: Well, it really does vary: depending on the patients’ overall physical condition, they may naturally be interested in selected active therapies, or may be interested in them from the outset; these can certainly be carried out here in our large practice, but which are often also accessed by patients close to home, so that they then come to our department either in combination with other treatments or specifically for microcurrent therapy.

00:07:42
Patrick Walitschek: Okay, that’s a fascinating area. And what about the, shall we say, traditional areas of application – such as, for example, osteoarthritis – or traditional pain management areas; is it used there as well?

00:07:58
Inge Metag: It’s mainly used in the outpatient clinic, because there are so many osteoarthritis patients we have to treat. It does happen that our affiliated geriatric department refers patients to us for this treatment, provided they can continue it on an outpatient basis.

00:08:22
Patrick Walitschek: Okay.

00:08:22
Inge Metag: In our experience, a two- to three-week inpatient stay – particularly for patients with osteoarthritis, spinal complaints or spondylarthrosis – a fairly lasting relief can be felt, as well as an improvement in the patients’ condition, which they definitely want to continue on an outpatient basis.

00:08:50
Patrick Walitschek: – Well, that’s certainly very interesting, yes. I remember we once – though that must have been quite a few years ago, certainly quite a few years, if not many years – we once discussed the topic of ‘rheumatism’ – I believe you’ve also treated patients quite successfully in the field of ‘rheumatism’, haven’t you?

00:09:11
Inge Metag: We have rheumatism patients in our outpatient department, and some in the medical clinic as well. This is an area which, at the clinic’s request, is intended to be further expanded in an inpatient setting, but it’s not yet at a stage where it would be profitable to treat patients as inpatients. That means there are a few individual patients whom we then – let’s put it this way – treat appropriately so that they can continue their outpatient care here at our clinic.

00:09:45
Patrick Walitschek: Okay.

00:09:45
Inge Metag: A patient base that is by no means small – one might well say – has built up here; however, these patients are not looked after continuously, but rather, when they genuinely feel they’ve improved, they’ll often take a break for a quarter of half a year or even a year, only to return – when their symptoms become a bit more acute again – and happily undergo the next course or the next round of microtherapy.

00:10:14
Patrick Walitschek: Okay. How long does a course like that last? Is there a set duration for you?

00:10:19
Inge Metag: Well, we decided – in order to offer patients a clear-cut proposal – to say: We recommend starting with ten sessions, at least in the outpatient setting, and then we discuss on a case-by-case basis whether they’d like another ten, or if it’s better to stop for now, or if they’d prefer to continue as a long-term treatment.

00:10:46
Patrick Walitschek: Right, right. I think that’s a very, very good approach – and one that’s easy for patients to understand, too.

00:10:56
Inge Metag: That’s quite right. There is also – shall we say – another method of application which we use in collaboration with neurologists, specifically for multiple sclerosis patients, at least for certain forms of MS. This is the inflammation programme, which we treat with local application, drawing on our knowledge of inflammatory foci in the brain or spinal cord – or in both regions – and which, in most cases, is administered on a long-term basis. In such cases, patients may come for treatment over a period of years, sometimes once a week, and report that the severity of their symptoms has diminished or that the interval between relapses sometimes seems almost to have ceased. However, collaboration with neurologists is very important here, because we ourselves cannot assess the nature and severity of multiple sclerosis.

00:12:09
Patrick Walitschek: Yes, yes, yes, I believe so. I actually believe that this collaboration – that’s what strikes me – brings a significant advantage; this kind of interdisciplinary collaboration can ultimately provide real added value for the patient. We’ve now strayed slightly from my interview guide. But that’s not a problem at all. In fact, it’s quite good. Because I’d like to go back to that point. You mentioned your career briefly earlier, and what I’d be interested to know – as would most people – is: how long have you been working with microcurrent in general?

00:12:48
Inge Metag: Well, I first came across microcurrent therapy in the late 1980s, of course in a much more basic form compared to what we have today. It went back to the roots of the American inventors of the 1970s. It all began back then with the aim of managing tennis players’ epicondylitis in such a way that their problems – which kept recurring despite medication or conventional treatments – weren’t simply masked, but were instead addressed through a comprehensive healing process. And there were standardised programmes specifically designed to treat tendinopathy – that is, epicondylitis – and it was already apparent that there was likely to be much greater potential than the early days had initially suggested.

00:13:56
Patrick Walitschek: Okay, so to summarise, one could say: you’ve actually got many, many decades of experience in the field of microcurrent therapy as well?

00:14:08
Inge Metag: That’s correct. I’ve witnessed much of the development, and, of course, the attempts by manufacturers of electrotherapy devices to establish themselves in this field to some extent – though it has to be said that, even now, in such a large, compact device, there’s a small component that doesn’t actually cover the core aspects of microcurrent therapy at all.

00:14:34
Patrick Walitschek: Yes, that’s also been my experience. It’s always such an interesting question: what would you say to someone if they – let’s say – claimed that microcurrent doesn’t work at all or isn’t effective? What would you say to them, in a nutshell?

00:14:55
Inge Metag: Well, I always like to compare it to the need for a pacemaker: virtually everyone is familiar with that. Most people also know someone who has a pacemaker, and I then ask: “Can you feel the pacemaker?” The immediate reply is “No”. Or they might say: “I can feel that whatever used to irritate me, bother me or even make me ill is no longer there”, and I draw a parallel by saying: “There are far more of the body’s own electrical currents than there are, comparatively speaking, heart or brain waves. And, just as with a pacemaker, there is a regulatory process that brings these currents into as physiological or normal a range as possible.”

00:15:41
Patrick Walitschek: Yes, yes, that’s a very nice comparison. Yes, absolutely. Whatever users tend to ask – whether online, in forums or even at seminars and training courses. It’s not so much a question as a sort of wish – a wish for a ‘cookbook’, a guide to electrode set-ups. In other words, you have a knee patient with condition XY and you want to know – everyone wants a clear picture – how should I apply the electrodes there, and then the same for a back patient, and so on. What’s your general view on this – I’ll call it the ‘copy-and-paste method’ – when it comes to using microcurrent?

00:16:22
Inge Metag: Well, I’m personally reluctant to recommend any sort of standard approach in my own treatments. What’s actually always decisive is what the patient or client tells me about the current treatment, or how they perceive it now – whether it’s different, better, or whatever – compared to a previous treatment. In other words, it often happens very quickly that, when a problem is being treated with microcurrent and begins to fade into the background, the patient will say: ‘Well, I didn’t realise I’d be noticing that area like this now; it wasn’t like that at all before.’ At that point, I’ve already moved away from the standard setting. It’s simply the communication with the patient that allows me to select the optimal setting, rather than me saying: “I started off like this and will now stick with it for a certain number of treatments”. You simply need to know what you want and what the current can do. And that quickly leads you to work not with a fixed programme, but in a way that’s constantly being updated and adapted.

00:17:35
Patrick Walitschek: Yes, absolutely. That’s brilliantly put. That’s also what I always try to pass on, because – I don’t know where it comes from, but it’s actually the case – I’d say it’s a sort of dogma to always treat according to a dogma; I find that quite interesting. And exactly as you said, when you set the goals, well, if you take the patient’s current condition as the basis for the treatment goal and derive the objectives for the current therapy from that – and, of course, do so in consultation with the patient – then I believe that’s the best approach. In principle, that’s exactly what you said, isn’t it?

00:18:13
Inge Metag: It’s partly down to history, I’d say; for many, electrotherapy has been rather neglected as a specialism, and I’ve even heard established colleagues say: “Well, I just want to know how it works and where I need to stick the electrodes. Then I set it for ten minutes and off it goes,” and that’s a difficult mindset to shake off.

00:18:41
Patrick Walitschek: Yes, I think so too. I reckon that’s always linked a bit to training as well. There’s also the complete opposite. Of course, there are – let’s put it this way – the extreme osteopaths who try to do the wildest things, which actually work. I always say that with microcurrent therapy, it’s like the roads to Rome: everyone goes their own way and still reaches the destination. It’s just that dogmatic approach – I believe that’s the worst thing you can do. At least, that’s how I feel about it.

00:19:10
Inge Metag: It may well be that osteopathy influences one’s whole way of thinking a little differently, or even paves the way to creativity – without just treating people at random – and that those who have studied osteopathy are much more likely to ask themselves: “Why can’t I do it this way or that way, or why don’t I try it this way or that way?” I can’t really speak authoritatively about osteopathy myself – I’m not trained in it, nor do I see any parallels with my microcurrent treatment – but I think my approach is essentially the same as that of colleagues who have been trained in it.

00:19:57
Patrick Walitschek: Yes, that’s very good. Yes, now we’re sort of back in my question-and-answer flow, which helps me keep a bit of an overview. I also think we’re at a point in the recording where I’ll probably make a cut here during editing and split the whole thing into at least two episodes, and then I’d actually like to move on specifically to the topic – you’re the expert on this, so to speak, if I may say so? – namely ‘microcurrent and neurology’.

00:20:33
Patrick Walitschek: That was the first part of our interview with physiotherapist Inge Metag, and next week we’ll be bringing you the second and final part of the interview, where, as mentioned, we’ll be delving deeper into the experiences and methods of using microcurrent with LuXXaMed in the field of neurology. With that in mind, I’d like to thank you for tuning in and, as usual, a reminder or rather a request: please rate us on ‘Apple Podcasts’ or wherever you listen to us. If you have any questions, you’ll find all our contact details in the show notes or on our website www.luxxamed.de. If you have any feedback or suggestions for topics for future podcasts or episodes, or perhaps you’d like to take part in a podcast interview yourself, we’d be absolutely delighted to hear from you: please write to us or get in touch. You can also find us on social media platforms such as ‘Instagram’, ‘Facebook’, ‘Twitter’ and others. On that note, I’d like to say a big thank you and see you next week.