Last year, a European physician-physiotherapist practice initiated contact us while establishing a three-treatment-room clinic. Adopting a phased implementation strategy, they equipped one room with our integrated therapeutic suite—including the EMFOCUS —with plans for expansion contingent on outcomes.
This clinic exemplifies the integration of evidence-based rehabilitation methodologies:
Foundational expertise in manual therapies (mobilizations, Mulligan concept, McKenzie method)
Complementary modalities (acupuncture, K-taping, cupping)
Advanced technologies (Tecar therapy, cryotherapy, shockwave, laser, infrared, electrotherapy)
To support their combination therapy approach, we delivered a comprehensive 6-device solution providing 9 therapeutic modalities: focused shockwave, radial shockwave, high-power laser, cold laser, Tecar, ultrasound, electrotherapy, PMST, and PEMF magnetotherapy. This consolidated system optimizes clinical space while enabling versatile treatment protocols.
Beyond equipment, our partnership framework—featuring responsive support, clinical guidance, and value-driven pricing—ensured successful implementation. Post-installation, the clinic conducted structured evaluations of the EMFOCUS system across 100 patients with 6 participating clinicians.
[Patient Outcomes]
Patient-reported outcomes (n=100) assessed session frequency, pain response, symptomatic improvement, satisfaction, and adverse effects:
Treatment Protocol: 60 patients received 2–3 sessions
Pain Response: 50 patients reported moderate discomfort during treatment
(Note: Focused shockwave targets deep tissue structures with minimal superficial stimulation. Sensation is typically described as deep pressure rather than acute pain, with optimal tolerability even in bony regions.)
Therapeutic Efficacy: 76% reported significant symptomatic improvement, including pain reduction and enhanced active range of motion (AROM)
Satisfaction: 83% rated their experience ≥4/5
Safety Profile: Minimal adverse effects reported
[Clinician Assessment]
Treating practitioners (n=6) evaluated system performance across shoulder impingement, adhesive capsulitis, epicondylitis, and plantar fasciitis:
100% confirmed adequate penetration depth and pressure control
Precision and usability rated 5/5 by 4 clinicians, 4/5 by 2
Significant improvement observed in 83% of cases (5/6), moderate improvement in 17% (1/6)
Zero maintenance or calibration issues reported
Clinicians recognized the system’s precision and operational efficiency, noting opportunities to enhance preset protocols for specific anatomies.
[Conclusion]
This case exemplifies our partnership model with contemporary rehabilitation practitioners—extending beyond equipment supply to support clinical excellence. For practices seeking integrated therapeutic systems with comprehensive support infrastructure, we invite dialogue regarding implementation opportunities.
