Literature DB >> 12168669

The effect of low intensity pulsed ultrasound applied to rabbit tibiae during the consolidation phase of distraction osteogenesis.

John E Tis1, C Rainer H Meffert, Nozomu Inoue, Edward F McCarthy, M Shaun Machen, Kathleen A McHale, Edmund Y S Chao.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine if low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPU) accelerated the maturation of regenerate bone when applied after distraction in a rabbit model. A mid-tibial osteotomy was performed in 26 New Zealand white rabbits and an external fixator applied anteromedially. After a seven day latency period, the tibiae were distracted 0.5 mm every 12 h for 10 days. Thirteen of the rabbits received LIPU for 20 min/day (treatment group) and 13 received sham LIPU (control group) from day 17 until sacrifice on day 37. Radiographs were taken weekly after distraction and the total and mineralized areas of the callus were measured. After sacrifice, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, torsional testing to failure, and histomorphometry were performed. Ultrasound-treated tibiae were a mean of 68.8 +/- 3.8% as stiff as and 68.2 +/- 6.0% as strong as the contralateral tibiae. Control tibiae were 78.7 +/- 7.0%, as stiff as and 70.2 +/- 7.9% as strong as the contralateral tibiae. The differences in stiffness and strength were not significant (p = 0.39 and 0.81, respectively) with the number of the animals tested in the study. The treatment group was 91.6% as dense as the contralateral side and the control group was 88.5% as dense as the contralateral side (p = 0.84). Radiographs revealed a significantly larger callus in the LIPU-treated tibiae at 1, 2 and 3 weeks after distraction compared to control tibiae (p < 0.01, 0.008 and 0.05, respectively). Histomorphometry revealed significantly less fibrous tissue in the LIPU-treated tibiae (p < 0.05) and a strong trend towards more bone in the LIPU-treated tibiae compared to controls (p = 0.06). LIPU was found to increase the size of the distraction callus and it might alter the composition of regenerate bone but it did not have a positive effect on the mechanical properties or density of regenerate bone when applied during the consolidation phase of distraction osteogenesis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12168669     DOI: 10.1016/S0736-0266(02)00003-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Res        ISSN: 0736-0266            Impact factor:   3.494


  9 in total

1.  [Application of low intensity, pulsed ultrasound on distraction osteogenesis of the humerus. Case report].

Authors:  M Dudda; A Pommer; G Muhr; S A Esenwein
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 1.000

2.  Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound shortens the treatment time in tibial distraction osteogenesis.

Authors:  Khaled Hamed Salem; Andreas Schmelz
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Effects of ultrasound on estradiol level, bone mineral density, bone biomechanics and matrix metalloproteinase-13 expression in ovariectomized rabbits.

Authors:  L U Xia; Hongchen He; Hua Guo; Yuxi Qing; Cheng-Qi He
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2015-08-06       Impact factor: 2.447

4.  The effect of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound on callus maturation in tibial distraction osteogenesis.

Authors:  Hani El-Mowafi; Mona Mohsen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2005-02-01       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Inhibition of myostatin signal pathway may be involved in low-intensity pulsed ultrasound promoting bone healing.

Authors:  Lijun Sun; Shuxin Sun; Xinjuan Zhao; Jing Zhang; Jianzhong Guo; Liang Tang; Dean Ta
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2019-08-03       Impact factor: 1.314

6.  Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound increases bone ingrowth into porous hydroxyapatite ceramic.

Authors:  Takao Iwai; Yoshifumi Harada; Koichi Imura; Sadahiro Iwabuchi; Junko Murai; Kunihiko Hiramatsu; Akira Myoui; Hideki Yoshikawa; Noriyuki Tsumaki
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2007-10-25       Impact factor: 2.626

Review 7.  Ultrasound as a stimulus for musculoskeletal disorders.

Authors:  Ning Zhang; Simon Kwoon-Ho Chow; Kwok-Sui Leung; Wing-Hoi Cheung
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2017-04-05       Impact factor: 5.191

8.  Regenerate bone stimulation following limb lengthening: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Julio J Jauregui; Anthony V Ventimiglia; Preston W Grieco; David B Frumberg; John E Herzenberg
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 9.  Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Stimulation for Bone Fractures Healing: A Review.

Authors:  Poornima Palanisamy; Monzurul Alam; Shuai Li; Simon K H Chow; Yong-Ping Zheng
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 2.754

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.