Sara Clelia Longo

This narrative literature review aims to examine and hypothesize about the neurobiological effects of the Tesla Functional Magnetic Stimulation (FMS) chair through a comprehensive search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, and arXiv databases. A critical finding emerged: published research specifically investigating the Tesla FMS chair and its neurobiological mechanisms is extremely limited. Among the papers identified and ranked by relevance, only one study directly examined a Tesla-branded FMS chair system, which investigated a 3 Tesla electromagnetic chair for treating female urinary incontinence. The vast majority of the retrieved literature pertains to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a distinct neuromodulation technique that targets cortical brain regions rather than peripheral nervous system structures. This review also provides a detailed analysis of the available evidence on general FMS technology, contextualizes findings within the broader magnetic stimulation literature, and identifies critical gaps requiring future investigation. The limited evidence suggests FMS chairs operate through peripheral nerve depolarization and sacral neuromodulation, but comprehensive neurobiological characterization is lacking the published literature and requires more high-quality studies. This review should be interpreted as a hypothesis-generating narrative synthesis rather than as a definitive mechanistic or efficacy assessment. The comparison with TMS is used only as a conceptual framework. At the same time, the specific mechanisms of chair-based FMS remain to be directly demonstrated through dedicated peripheral, spinal, and supraspinal investigations.

Background: Tendinopathy is a degenerative condition caused by mechanical overload, accounting for approximately 30% of musculoskeletal healthcare cases. It progresses through a process characterized by collagen disorganization, altered vascularization, and neuronal ingrowth. Traditional conservative treatments, such as therapeutic exercises, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and physical therapies, are useful, but their effectiveness is sometimes only partial and there is a need to search for new potential solutions. Recent interest in oxygen–ozone (O₂-O₃) therapy stems from preliminary observations suggesting potential anti-inflammatory and regenerative effects. Nevertheless, its clinical role remains speculative and warrants thorough investigation beyond anecdotal evidence. Considering the heterogeneity of clinical presentations and treatment responses among patients, O₂-O₃ therapy has been proposed as a promising tool for tailoring personalized treatment strategies for tendinopathy. This review critically appraises the available literature concerning the mechanistic rationale and clinical applications of O₂-O₃ therapy in tendinopathy, with attention to both its theoretical underpinnings and the quality of empirical evidence. Methods: A literature search was conducted on O₂-O₃ therapy for tendinopathy using PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, filtering for full-text articles published between 2004 and 2024. Recent clinical trials were included irrespective of evidence level, while excluding systematic reviews, duplicates, and irrelevant studies. Results: Ozone has been shown to modulate oxidative stress, promote neovascularization, and suppress pro-inflammatory cytokines. Both clinical and in vivo studies indicate that O₂-O₃ therapy relieves pain, enhances tendon healing, and improves biomechanical properties. Some comparative studies suggest that O₂-O₃ therapy might provide more sustained symptoms control than corticosteroids, but the heterogeneity of follow-up durations and outcome measures prevents definitive conclusions. Conclusions: O₂-O₃ therapy emerges as a potentially valuable adjunct in the management of chronic tendinopathy, particularly in cases unresponsive to conventional treatments. However, its clinical role remains to be clearly defined and its possible role in personalized medicine needs further exploration, particularly in relation to patient stratification and individualized treatment protocols. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate its efficacy, determine long-term outcomes, and standardize treatment protocols to ensure safety and reproducibility.

Wheelchair basketball (WB) grants important benefits for people with disabilities but also presents a relevant risk of injury. Wheelchair straps are restraint devices that can improve safety and performance, but limited research has explored their use in WB. This study aims to analyze the use of different types of straps among professional WB players, according to classification score. A cross-sectional study was conducted through an online survey. Participants were divided into two groups based on classification score: low-point players (LPPs; 1.0–2.5), who have greater physical impairment, and high-point players (HPPs; 3.0–4.5), who have lower physical impairment. A total of 82 WB players participated (43 LPPs; 39 HPPs). The Chi-squared test was used to compare variables between groups. Significant differences emerged: chest (p = 0.036), abdominal (p = 0.036), and foot (p = 0.016) straps were more frequently used by LPPs, while thigh (p = 0.020) and leg (p = 0.050) straps were more common among HPPs. No significant difference was found for pelvic strap. Straps used in WB vary with classification score, reflecting the influence of functional ability. These findings offer insights into individualized wheelchair setup and classification procedures. Further studies are needed to expand knowledge on this topic.