Literature DB >> 18978400

Electrical stimulation for long-bone fracture-healing: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Brent Mollon1, Vitor da Silva, Jason W Busse, Thomas A Einhorn, Mohit Bhandari.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bone stimulation represents a $500 million market in the United States. The use of electromagnetic stimulation in the treatment of fractures is common; however, the efficacy of this modality remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effect of electromagnetic stimulation on long-bone fracture-healing.
METHODS: We searched four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and all Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews) for trials of electromagnetic stimulation and bone repair, in any language, published from the inception of the database to April 2008. In addition, we searched by hand seven relevant journals published between 1980 and April 2008 and the bibliographies of eligible trials. Eligible trials enrolled patients with long-bone lesions, randomly assigned them to electromagnetic stimulation or a control group, and reported on bone-healing. Information on the methodological quality, stimulation device, duration of treatment, patient demographics, and all clinical outcomes were independently extracted by two reviewers.
RESULTS: Of 2546 citations obtained in the literature search, eleven articles met the inclusion criteria. Evidence from four trials reporting on 106 delayed or ununited fractures demonstrated an overall nonsignificant pooled relative risk of 1.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.8 to 3.8; p = 0.15; I(2) = 60.4%) in favor of electromagnetic stimulation. Single studies found a positive benefit of electromagnetic stimulation on callus formation in femoral intertrochanteric osteotomies, a limited benefit for conservatively managed Colles fracture or for lower limb-lengthening, and no benefit on limb-length imbalance and need for reoperation in surgically managed pseudarthroses or on time to clinical healing in tibial stress fractures. Pain was reduced in one of the four trials assessing this outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: While our pooled analysis does not show a significant impact of electromagnetic stimulation on delayed unions or ununited long-bone fractures, methodological limitations and high between-study heterogeneity leave the impact of electromagnetic stimulation on fracture-healing uncertain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18978400     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00111

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  36 in total

Review 1.  Fracture healing: mechanisms and interventions.

Authors:  Thomas A Einhorn; Louis C Gerstenfeld
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 20.543

Review 2.  Stem cell-derived exosomes: A promising strategy for fracture healing.

Authors:  Zi-Chen Hao; Jun Lu; Shan-Zheng Wang; Hao Wu; Yun-Tong Zhang; Shuo-Gui Xu
Journal:  Cell Prolif       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 6.831

Review 3.  Bone healing in 2016.

Authors:  John A Buza; Thomas Einhorn
Journal:  Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab       Date:  2016-10-05

4.  Mesenchymal stem cells with increased stromal cell-derived factor 1 expression enhanced fracture healing.

Authors:  Chih-Yuan Ho; Anita Sanghani; Jia Hua; Melanie Coathup; Priya Kalia; Gordon Blunn
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part A       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 3.845

5.  Methods to shorten the duration of an external fixator in the management of tibial infections.

Authors:  Khaled M Emara; Khaled Abd Al Ghafar; Mohamed Ahmed Al Kersh
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2011-09-18

Review 6.  Low-intensity pulsed ultrasonography versus electrical stimulation for fracture healing: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shanil Ebrahim; Brent Mollon; Sheena Bance; Jason W Busse; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.089

7.  Stimulation of osteogenic differentiation in human osteoprogenitor cells by pulsed electromagnetic fields: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Justus H W Jansen; Olav P van der Jagt; Bas J Punt; Jan A N Verhaar; Johannes P T M van Leeuwen; Harrie Weinans; Holger Jahr
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-08-23       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Radiodensitometric Assessment of the Effect of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Stimulation Versus Low Intensity Laser Irradiation on Mandibular Fracture Repair: A Preliminary Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Hamida Refai; Dalia Radwan; Nermeen Hassanien
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2013-07-26

9.  Bone stimulation for fracture healing: What's all the fuss?

Authors:  Galkowski Victoria; Brad Petrisor; Brian Drew; David Dick
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.251

10.  The science of electrical stimulation therapy for fracture healing.

Authors:  Paul Rt Kuzyk; Emil H Schemitsch
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.251

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.