Literature DB >> 12131732

Combined magnetic fields accelerate and increase spine fusion: a double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study.

Raymond J Linovitz1, Mini Pathria, Mark Bernhardt, Daniel Green, Melvin D Law, Robert A McGuire, Pasquale X Montesano, Glen Rechtine, Richard M Salib, James T Ryaby, Joel S Faden, Regina Ponder, Larry R Muenz, Frank P Magee, Steven A Garfin.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: The clinical study conducted was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of combined magnetic fields on the healing of primary noninstrumented posterolateral lumbar spine fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Combined magnetic fields, a new type of biophysical stimulus, have been shown to act by stimulating endogenous production of growth factors that regulate the healing process. This is the first placebo-controlled study to assess the effect of an electromagnetic stimulus on primary noninstrumented posterolateral lumbar spine fusion surgery as well as the first evaluation of combined magnetic fields as an adjunctive stimulus to lumbar spine fusion.
METHODS: This multicenter investigational study was conducted at 10 clinical sites under an Investigational Device Exemption from the United States Food and Drug Administration. Eligible patients had one-level or two-level fusions (between L3 and S1) without instrumentation, either with autograft alone or in combination with allograft. The combined magnetic field device used a single posterior coil, centered over the fusion site, with one 30-minute treatment per day for 9 months. Randomization was stratified by site and number of levels fused. Evaluation was performed 3, 6, and 9 months after surgery and 3 months after the end of treatment. The primary endpoint was assessment of fusion at 9 months, based on radiographic evaluation by a blinded panel consisting of the treating physician, a musculoskeletal radiologist, and a spine surgeon.
RESULTS: Of 243 enrolled patients, 201 were available for evaluation. Among all patients with active devices, 64% healed at 9 months compared with 43% of patients with placebo devices: a significant difference (P = 0.003 by Fisher's exact test). Stratification by gender showed fusion in 67% of women with active devices, compared with 35% of those with placebo devices (P = 0.001 by Fisher's exact test). By contrast, there was not a statistically significant effect of the active device in this male study population. In the overall population of 201 patients, repeated measures analyses of fusion outcomes (by generalized estimating equations) showed a main effect of treatment, favoring the active treatment (P = 0.030). In a model with main effect and a time by treatment interaction, the latter was significant (P = 0.024), indicating acceleration of healing. Performed in the full sample of 243 patients, results of the intent-to-treat analysis were qualitatively the same as in the evaluable sample of 201 patients. DISCUSSION: This investigational study demonstrates that combined magnetic field treatment of 30 min/d increases the probability of successful spine fusion, and statistical analysis using the generalized estimating equations model suggests an acceleration of the healing process. This is the first randomized clinical trial of noninstrumented primary posterolateral lumbar spine fusion, with evaluation by a blinded, unbiased panel. This is the first double-blind study performed to date assessing noninstrumented fusion outcome with extremely critical radiographic criteria. The lower overall fusion rates in this study are attributed to the high-risk patient group with an average age of 57 years, the use of noninstrumented technique with posterolateral fusion only, and the reliance on extremely critical radiographic and clinical criteria and blinded panel for fusion assessment without surgical confirmation.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the adjunctive use of the combined magnetic field device was statistically beneficial in the overall patient population, as has been shown in previous studies of adjunctive bone growth stimulation for spine fusion. For the first time, stratification of fusion success data by gender demonstrated that the female study population responded positively to the adjunctive combined magnetic field treatment, with no statistically significant effect observed in the male study population. Adjunctive use of the combined magnetic field device significantly increased the 9-month success of radiographic spinal fusion and showed an acceleration of the healing process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12131732     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200207010-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  22 in total

Review 1.  Electrical stimulation therapies for spinal fusions: current concepts.

Authors:  Jean C Gan; Paul A Glazer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-04-08       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Exposure to 50 Hz electromagnetic fields enhances hair follicle regrowth in C57BL/6 mice.

Authors:  Xinping Li; Xin Wang; Liming Bai; Pin Zhao; Mingsheng Zhang
Journal:  Exp Biol Med (Maywood)       Date:  2019-03-01

3.  Does Capacitively Coupled Electric Fields Stimulation Improve Clinical Outcomes After Instrumented Spinal Fusion? A Multicentered Randomized, Prospective, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Leo Massari; Giovanni Barbanti Brodano; Stefania Setti; Gaetano Caruso; Enrico Gallazzi; Simona Salati; Marco Brayda-Bruno
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-01-20

4.  Effect of Magnetic Field on Bone Healing around Endosseous Implants - An In-vivo Study.

Authors:  Mahalakshmi Gujjalapudi; Chandrasekar Anam; Praveen Mamidi; Radha Chiluka; A Gautam Kumar; Ragini Bibinagar
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-10-01

5.  Can povidone-iodine solution be used safely in a spinal surgery?

Authors:  Fang-Yeng Chang; Ming-Chau Chang; Shih-Tien Wang; Wing-Kwang Yu; Chien-Lin Liu; Tain-Hsiung Chen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-08-20       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Electrical stimulation-based bone fracture treatment, if it works so well why do not more surgeons use it?

Authors:  Mit Balvantray Bhavsar; Zhihua Han; Thomas DeCoster; Liudmila Leppik; Karla Mychellyne Costa Oliveira; John H Barker
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2019-04-06       Impact factor: 3.693

Review 7.  Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis.

Authors:  J N A Gibson; G Waddell
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2005-10-19

8.  Prediction of fusion and importance of radiological variables for the outcome of anterior cervical decompression and fusion.

Authors:  Anneli Peolsson; Rune Hedlund; Ludek Vavruch
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-01-09       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy improves tendon-to-bone healing in a rat rotator cuff repair model.

Authors:  Jennica J Tucker; James M Cirone; Tyler R Morris; Courtney A Nuss; Julianne Huegel; Erik I Waldorff; Nianli Zhang; James T Ryaby; Louis J Soslowsky
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 3.494

10.  Effects of focused continuous pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on early tendon-to-bone healing.

Authors:  Oleg Dolkart; Efi Kazum; Yoav Rosenthal; Osnat Sher; Guy Morag; Elad Yakobson; Ofir Chechik; Eran Maman
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 5.853

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.