Microcurrent therapy works. This is proven by studies, clinical data and thousands of treatment outcomes. But it only works if the current actually reaches the tissue. And that is by no means a given.

Anyone who works with the HD 2000+ will be familiar with this scenario: the protocol is set, the frequencies are correct, the patient is comfortably positioned – and yet the desired effect fails to materialise. At such moments, most people’s first thought is to adjust the protocol or change the frequency. Yet the cause is often much closer to hand: the electrode itself.

Ohm’s Law – not schoolwork, but practical knowledge

Three variables determine what happens electrically within the body: current (I), voltage (U) and resistance (R). Their relationship is simple: I = U / R. What this means is that with higher resistance, less current flows – at the same voltage.

The HD 2000+ operates at a maximum output voltage of 60 volts. This limit has been deliberately set: higher voltages would generate thermal effects in the tissue. At 60 volts and a favourable tissue resistance of around 95 kiloohms, up to 630 microamperes are possible – precisely the range that Cheng et al. (1982) describe as optimal for cellular energy production: “The optimal current of 300–500 µA was shown to promote ATP synthesis by up to 500%” (Cheng et al., 1982, p. 623). If the resistance rises to 350 kiloohms, only around 170 microamperes are delivered at the same 60 volts. This is a crucial difference in terms of the therapeutic effect.

The skin must be ionised – this is no small matter

The skin is not a passive transport medium. It is the tissue with the highest electrical resistance in the body. Dry epidermis can reach resistances in the range of several hundred kiloohms (Malmivuo & Plonsey, 1995). To overcome this barrier, the device must increase the voltage and ionise the outermost layer of skin – setting the electrically charged particles in motion so that the resistance decreases and the current can penetrate deeper. The HD 2000+ does this fully automatically. However, this process requires that the electrode itself does not generate any additional resistance.

Albert Szent-Györgyi, Nobel Laureate in Biochemistry, described biological tissue as a semiconducting system as early as 1941: Living molecules behave like biological semiconductors and communicate via electric fields (Szent-Györgyi, 1941). Microcurrent targets precisely this – and relies on an interference-free contact path to do so.

Contact resistance – the underestimated problem

A so-called contact resistance always arises between the electrode and the skin. The device cannot distinguish this from the actual tissue resistance. It detects a high total resistance and reacts accordingly – without knowing where the problem lies.

The most common causes in practice:

Dried-out gel. Adhesive electrodes have a specified moisture content. If the gel dries out – due to incorrect storage, prolonged periods of inactivity or opened packets – conductivity drops dramatically. A simple rule: if the electrode no longer adheres across its entire surface, remove it.

Oily skin. Cream, lotion, body oil or make-up form an insulating layer. The treatment area must be free of oil before every session.

Damp towels. If water collects on the skin, the current flows through the water rather than through the tissue – physics follows the path of least resistance. The towel also dries out during treatment, continuously altering the resistance without the therapist realising it.

Expired electrodes. The expiry date marks the point from which the gel’s properties and conductivity can no longer be guaranteed.

What the research says

A recent pilot study showed an average improvement in hand function of 40 per cent in patients with systemic scleroderma following a treatment session of 45 to 60 minutes – statistically highly significant with p = 0.0001 (Gregory et al., 2025). McMakin (2005) documented a reduction in pain scores from 7.4 to 1.3 on a ten-point scale in patients with fibromyalgia, as well as significantly reduced inflammatory markers (IL-1, TNF-alpha). In our own PMCF study (Walitschek, 2024), involving n = 2,346 treatments, a statistically significant reduction in pain was demonstrated across all indication groups (p < 0.05).

These results are genuine. However, they depend on the current reaching the intended target.

The most important insight

All protocols, all frequencies, all clinical effects – they are only as good as the contact between the electrode and the skin. Anyone who cuts corners, experiments or is careless in this regard is treating patients without taking the physics into account.

The most expensive electrode is the one that’s fitted incorrectly.

References

Cheng, N., Van Hoof, H., Bockx, E., Hoogmartens, M. J., Mulier, J. C., De Dijcker, F. J., Sansen, W. M., & De Loecker, W. (1982). The effects of electric currents on ATP generation, protein synthesis, and membrane transport in rat skin. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 171, 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198211000-00045

Gregory, W. M., Bagley, K., Eng, S., McMakin, C., & Del Galdo, F. (2025). Frequency-specific microcurrent improves hand function and Raynaud’s symptoms in scleroderma: Results of two pilot studies. Rheumatology, 64, 5504–5508. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keaf301

Malmivuo, J., & Plonsey, R. (1995). Bioelectromagnetism: Principles and applications of bioelectric and biomagnetic fields. Oxford University Press.

McMakin, C. R. (2005). Microcurrent treatment of myofascial pain in the head, neck, and face. Topics in Clinical Chiropractic, 2(3), 29–35.

Szent-Györgyi, A. (1941). Towards a new biochemistry? Science, 93(2426), 609–611. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.93.2426.609

Walitschek, P. (2024). Ongoing evidence of the clinical efficacy of LuXXaMed microcurrent devices: PMCF Report 2024 (Rev. 00). LuXXaMed GmbH. https://www.luxxamed.de