Literature DB >> 17983841

Randomized, prospective, and controlled clinical trial of pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation for cervical fusion.

Kevin T Foley1, Thomas E Mroz, Paul M Arnold, Howard C Chandler, Robert A Dixon, Gerard J Girasole, Kenneth L Renkens, K Daniel Riew, Rick C Sasso, Richard C Smith, Howard Tung, Daniel A Wecht, Donald M Whiting.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Multilevel fusions, the use of allograft bone, and smoking have been associated with an increased risk of nonunion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation has been shown to increase arthrodesis rates after lumbar spine fusion surgery, but there are minimal data concerning the effect of PEMF stimulation on cervical spine fusion.
PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and safety of PEMF stimulation as an adjunct to arthrodesis after ACDF in patients with potential risk factors for nonunion. STUDY
DESIGN: A randomized, controlled, prospective multicenter clinical trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: Three hundred and twenty-three patients with radiographic evidence (computed tomography-myelogram [CT-myelo] or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) of a compressed cervical nerve root and symptomatic radiculopathy appropriate to the compressed root that had failed to respond to nonoperative management were enrolled in the study. The patients were either smokers (more than one pack per day) and/or were undergoing multilevel fusions. All patients underwent ACDF using the Smith-Robinson technique. Allograft bone and an anterior cervical plate were used in all cases. OUTCOME MEASURES: Measurements were obtained preoperatively and at each postoperative interval and included neurologic assessment, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for shoulder/arm pain at rest and with activity, SF-12 scores, the neck disability index (NDI), and radiographs (anteroposterior, lateral, and flexion-extension views). Two orthopedic surgeons not otherwise affiliated with the study and blinded to treatment group evaluated the radiographs, as did a blinded radiologist. Adverse events were reported by all patients throughout the study to determine device safety.
METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: those receiving PEMF stimulation after surgery (PEMF group, 163 patients) and those not receiving PEMF stimulation (control group, 160 patients). Postoperative care was otherwise identical. Follow-up was carried out at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: The PEMF and control groups were comparable with regard to age, gender, race, past medical history, smoking status, and litigation status. Both groups were also comparable in terms of baseline diagnosis (herniated disc, spondylosis, or both) and number of levels operated (one, two, three, or four). At 6 months postoperatively, the PEMF group had a significantly higher fusion rate than the control group (83.6% vs. 68.6%, p=.0065). At 12 months after surgery, the stimulated group had a fusion rate of 92.8% compared with 86.7% for the control group (p=.1129). There were no significant differences between the PEMF and control groups with regard to VAS pain scores, NDI, or SF-12 scores at 6 or 12 months. No significant differences were found in the incidence of adverse events in the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized, controlled trial that analyzes the effects of PEMF stimulation on cervical spine fusion. PEMF stimulation significantly improved the fusion rate at 6 months postoperatively in patients undergoing ACDF with an allograft and an anterior cervical plate, the eligibility criteria being patients who were smokers or had undergone multilevel cervical fusion. At 12 months postoperatively, however, the fusion rate for PEMF patients was not significantly different from that of the control group. There were no differences in the incidence of adverse events in the two groups, indicating that the use of PEMF stimulation is safe in this clinical setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17983841     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.06.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  25 in total

Review 1.  A review of the responses of two- and three-dimensional engineered tissues to electric fields.

Authors:  Marie Hronik-Tupaj; David L Kaplan
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part B Rev       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 6.389

2.  Extremely small-magnitude accelerations enhance bone regeneration: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Soon Jung Hwang; Svetlana Lublinsky; Young-Kwon Seo; In Sook Kim; Stefan Judex
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Clinical significance of different effects of static and pulsed electromagnetic fields on human osteoclast cultures.

Authors:  Simona Angela Barnaba; Laura Ruzzini; Alberto Di Martino; Angela Lanotte; Alessandro Sgambato; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 2.631

4.  Carpal scaphoid non-union treatment: a retrospective trial comparing simple retrograde percutaneous screw fixation versus percutaneous screw fixation plus pulsed electromagnetic fields (Physiostim®).

Authors:  Alexis Pereira; Juan José Hidalgo Díaz; Maurise Saur; Santiago Salazar Botero; Sybille Facca; Philippe Liverneaux
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2017-04-11

Review 5.  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

6.  Effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on pain, functional status, and quality of life in patients with chronic non-specific neck pain: A prospective, randomized-controlled study.

Authors:  Merve Karakaş; Haydar Gök
Journal:  Turk J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2020-05-18

7.  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

8.  Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulates cellular proliferation in human intervertebral disc cells.

Authors:  Hwan-Mo Lee; Un-Hye Kwon; Hyang Kim; Ho-Joong Kim; Boram Kim; Jin-Oh Park; Eun-Soo Moon; Seong-Hwan Moon
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.759

9.  Electrical stimulation in bone healing: critical analysis by evaluating levels of evidence.

Authors:  Michelle Griffin; Ardeshir Bayat
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2011-07-26

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.