Literature DB >> 19934803

The effect of electrical stimulation on lumbar spinal fusion in older patients: a randomized, controlled, multi-center trial: part 2: fusion rates.

Thomas Andersen1, Finn B Christensen, Niels Egund, Carsten Ernst, Søren Fruensgaard, Jørgen Østergaard, Jens Langer Andersen, Sten Rasmussen, Bent Niedermann, Kristian Høy, Peter Helmig, Randi Holm, Bent Erling Lindblad, Ebbe Stender Hansen, Cody Bünger.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, multi-center trial.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of direct current (DC) electrical stimulation on fusion rates after lumbar spinal fusion in patients older than 60 years. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Older patients have increased complication rates after spinal fusion surgery. Treatments which have the possibility of enhancing functional outcome and fusion rates without lengthening the procedure could prove beneficial. DC-stimulation of spinal fusion has proven effective in increasing fusion rates in younger and "high risk" patients, but little information exist on the effect in older patients.
METHODS: A randomized clinical trial comprising 5 orthopedic centers. The study included a total of 107 patients randomized to uninstrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion with or without DC-stimulation. Fusion rate was assessed at 2 year follow-up using thin slice CT. Functional outcome was assessed using Dallas Pain Questionnaire and Low Back Pain Rating Scale pain index. RESULTS.: Available follow-up after 2 years was 89% (84 of 95 patients). Fusion rates were surprisingly low. DC-stimulation had no effect on fusion rate: 35% versus 36% in controls. Other factors associated with low fusion rates were female gender (32% vs. 42% in males, P = 0.050) and smoking (21% vs. 42% in nonsmokers, P = 0.079). Patients who achieved a solid fusion as determined by CT had superior functional outcome and pain scores at their latest follow-up.
CONCLUSION: Thin slice CT revealed very high nonunion rates after uninstrumented spinal fusion in older patients. DC-stimulation was not effective in increasing fusion rates in this patient population. The achievement of a solid fusion was associated with superior functional outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19934803     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b02c59

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


  12 in total

1.  The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure's semi-structured interview: its applicability to lumbar spinal fusion patients. A prospective randomized clinical study.

Authors:  Lisa Gregersen Oestergaard; Thomas Maribo; Cody Erik Bünger; Finn Bjarke Christensen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-08-24       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Fusion mass bone quality after uninstrumented spinal fusion in older patients.

Authors:  Thomas Andersen; Finn B Christensen; Bente L Langdahl; Carsten Ernst; Søren Fruensgaard; Jørgen Ostergaard; Jens Langer Andersen; Sten Rasmussen; Bent Niedermann; Kristian Høy; Peter Helmig; Randi Holm; Bent Erling Lindblad; Ebbe Stender Hansen; Niels Egund; Cody Bünger
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-04-29       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for acute pain.

Authors:  Mark I Johnson; Carole A Paley; Tracey E Howe; Kathleen A Sluka
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-06-15

Review 4.  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

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

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

6.  Degenerative spondylolisthesis is associated with low spinal bone density: a comparative study between spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Thomas Andersen; Finn B Christensen; Bente L Langdahl; Carsten Ernst; Søren Fruensgaard; Jørgen Østergaard; Jens Langer Andersen; Sten Rasmussen; Bent Niedermann; Kristian Høy; Peter Helmig; Randi Holm; Niels Egund; Cody Bünger
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2013-08-19       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 7.  Electrical stimulation to enhance spinal fusion: a systematic review.

Authors:  Paul Park; Darryl Lau; Erika D Brodt; Joseph R Dettori
Journal:  Evid Based Spine Care J       Date:  2014-10

Review 8.  Efficacy of Electrical Stimulators for Bone Healing: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Sham-Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Ilyas S Aleem; Idris Aleem; Nathan Evaniew; Jason W Busse; Michael Yaszemski; Arnav Agarwal; Thomas Einhorn; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-08-19       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Characterization of the electrical conductivity of bone and its correlation to osseous structure.

Authors:  Thomas Wyss Balmer; Soma Vesztergom; Peter Broekmann; Andreas Stahel; Philippe Büchler
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Efficacy of Electrical Stimulation for Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Shakib Akhter; Abdul Rehman Qureshi; Idris Aleem; Hussein Ali El-Khechen; Shadman Khan; Omaike Sikder; Moin Khan; Mohit Bhandari; Ilyas Aleem
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-03-12       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.