Literature DB >> 32165697

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

Shakib Akhter1,2, Abdul Rehman Qureshi3, Idris Aleem4, Hussein Ali El-Khechen3, Shadman Khan3, Omaike Sikder3, Moin Khan5, Mohit Bhandari3,5,6, Ilyas Aleem7.   

Abstract

Spinal fusion is one of the most common procedures performed in spine surgery. As rates of spinal fusion continue to increase, rates of complications such as nonunions continue to increase as well. Current evidence supporting the use of electrical stimulation to promote fusion is inconclusive. This review aimed to determine if postoperative electrical stimulation is more efficacious than no stimulation or placebo in promoting radiographic fusion in patients undergoing spinal fusion. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, CINAHL and MEDLINE from date of inception to current. Ongoing clinical trials were also identified and reference lists of included studies were manually searched for relevant articles. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Trialists were contacted for any missing or incomplete data. Of 1184 articles screened, 7 studies were eligible for final inclusion (n = 941). A total of 487 patients received postoperative electrical stimulation and 454 patients received control or sham stimulation. All evidence was of moderate quality. Electrical stimulation (pulsed electromagnetic fields, direct current, and capacitive coupling) increased the odds of a successful fusion by 2.5-fold relative to control (OR = 2.53, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.43, p < 0.00001). A test for subgroup interaction by stimulation type, smoking status, and number of levels fused was not significant (p = 0.93, p = 0.82 and p = 0.65, respectively). This systematic review and meta-analysis found moderate-quality evidence supporting the use of postoperative electrical stimulation as an adjunct to spinal fusion surgery. Patients treated with electrical stimulation have significantly greater rates of successful fusion. The level of evidence for this study is therapeutic level I.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32165697      PMCID: PMC7067864          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-61266-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  35 in total

Review 1.  Electrical bone graft stimulation for spinal fusion: a review.

Authors:  M Oishi; S T Onesti
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.654

Review 2.  Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates.

Authors:  Douglas G Altman; J Martin Bland
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-01-25

Review 3.  Electrical stimulation of spinal fusion: a scientific and clinical update.

Authors:  Neil Kahanovitz
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2002 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.166

4.  Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008.

Authors:  Sean S Rajaee; Hyun W Bae; Linda E A Kanim; Rick B Delamarter
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Direct current electrical bone growth stimulation for spinal fusion.

Authors:  W J Kane
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Direct current stimulation of allograft in anterior and posterior lumbar interbody fusions.

Authors:  A J Meril
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 7.  Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Daniel Yavin; Steven Casha; Samuel Wiebe; Thomas E Feasby; Callie Clark; Albert Isaacs; Jayna Holroyd-Leduc; R John Hurlbert; Hude Quan; Andrew Nataraj; Garnette R Sutherland; Nathalie Jette
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 4.654

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

Authors:  Thomas Andersen; 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
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 9.  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

10.  Rating the certainty in evidence in the absence of a single estimate of effect.

Authors:  M Hassan Murad; Reem A Mustafa; Holger J Schünemann; Shahnaz Sultan; Nancy Santesso
Journal:  Evid Based Med       Date:  2017-03-20
View more
  3 in total

1.  Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Stimulators Efficacy for Noninvasive Bone Growth in Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Brian Fiani; Athanasios Kondilis; Juliana Runnels; Preston Rippe; Cyrus Davati
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2021-06-11

2.  Circadian Rhythm Modulates the Therapeutic Activity of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields on Intervertebral Disc Degeneration in Rats.

Authors:  Yi Zheng; Yiming Hao; Bing Xia; Liangwei Mei; Shengyou Li; Xue Gao; Teng Ma; Bin Wei; Zhifen Tan; Pingheng Lan; Zhuojing Luo; Da Jing; Jinghui Huang
Journal:  Oxid Med Cell Longev       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 6.543

Review 3.  Understanding the Future Prospects of Synergizing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery with Ceramics and Regenerative Cellular Therapies.

Authors:  Wen-Cheng Lo; Lung-Wen Tsai; Yi-Shan Yang; Ryan Wing Yuk Chan
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 5.923

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.