Literature DB >> 21915570

Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation for acute tibial shaft fractures: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial.

Sam Adie1, Ian A Harris, Justine M Naylor, Hamish Rae, Alan Dao, Sarah Yong, Victoria Ying.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tibial shaft fractures are sometimes complicated by delayed union and nonunion, necessitating further surgical interventions. Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation is an effective treatment for delayed unions and nonunions, but its efficacy in preventing healing complications in patients with acute fractures is largely untested. The purpose of this pragmatic trial was to determine whether adjuvant pulsed electromagnetic field therapy for acute tibial shaft fractures reduces the rate of surgical revision because of delayed union or nonunion.
METHODS: In a double-blind randomized trial involving six metropolitan trauma hospitals, 259 participants with acute tibial shaft fractures (AO/OTA type 42) were randomized by means of external allocation to externally identical active and inactive pulsed electromagnetic field devices. Participants were instructed to wear the device for ten hours daily for twelve weeks. Management was otherwise unaltered. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants requiring a secondary surgical intervention because of delayed union or nonunion within twelve months after the injury. Secondary outcomes included surgical intervention for any reason, radiographic union at six months, and the Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary and Lower Extremity Functional Scales at twelve months. Main analyses were by intention to treat.
RESULTS: Two hundred and eighteen participants (84%) completed the twelve-month follow-up. One hundred and six patients were allocated to the active device group, and 112 were allocated to the placebo group. Compliance was moderate, with 6.2 hours of average daily use. Overall, sixteen patients in the active group and fifteen in the inactive group experienced a primary outcome event (risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.95 to 1.14; p = 0.72). According to per-protocol analysis, there were six primary events (12.2%) in the active, compliant group and twenty-six primary events (15.1%) in the combined placebo and active, noncompliant group (risk ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.10; p = 0.61). No between-group differences were found with regard to surgical intervention for any reason, radiographic union, or functional measures.
CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation does not prevent secondary surgical interventions for delayed union or nonunion and does not improve radiographic union or patient-reported functional outcomes in patients with acute tibial shaft fractures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21915570     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00869

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


  16 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Management of simple (types A and B) closed tibial shaft fractures using percutaneous lag-screw fixation and Ilizarov external fixation in adults.

Authors:  Mohamed El-Sayed; Ashraf Atef
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  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

4.  Outcomes of the Treatment of Fracture Non-union Using Combined Magnetic Field Bone Growth Stimulation: Experiences From a UK Trauma Unit.

Authors:  Vusumuzi Sibanda; Fitzgerald Anazor; Jai Relwani; Baljinder S Dhinsa
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-05-18

Review 5.  Electrical Stimulation of Acute Fractures: A Narrative Review of Stimulation Protocols and Device Specifications.

Authors:  Peter J Nicksic; D'Andrea T Donnelly; Nishant Verma; Allison J Setiz; Andrew J Shoffstall; Kip A Ludwig; Aaron M Dingle; Samuel O Poore
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-06-02

6.  Effect of Diode Laser on Healing of Tooth Extraction Socket: An Experimental Study in Rabbits.

Authors:  Shehab Ahmed Hamad; Jandar S Naif; Mahdi A Abdullah
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2015-09-25

7.  mTOR Activation by PI3K/Akt and ERK Signaling in Short ELF-EMF Exposed Human Keratinocytes.

Authors:  Antonia Patruno; Mirko Pesce; Alfredo Grilli; Lorenza Speranza; Sara Franceschelli; Maria Anna De Lutiis; Giovina Vianale; Erica Costantini; Paolo Amerio; Raffaella Muraro; Mario Felaco; Marcella Reale
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-02       Impact factor: 3.240

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.  Early application of pulsed electromagnetic field in the treatment of postoperative delayed union of long-bone fractures: a prospective randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Hong-fei Shi; Jin Xiong; Yi-xin Chen; Jun-fei Wang; Xu-sheng Qiu; Yin-he Wang; Yong Qiu
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2013-01-19       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Percutaneous autologous bone marrow transplantation for the treatment of delayed union of limb bone in children.

Authors:  Jun Wu; Hongxi Guo; Xing Liu; Ming Li; Yujiang Cao; Xiangyang Qu; Hai Zhou; Liuqi Weng
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 2.423

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.