Literature DB >> 6233054

Stimulation of fracture healing with electromagnetic fields of extremely low frequency (EMF of ELF).

O Wahlström.   

Abstract

This randomized, controlled study was performed to evaluate how electromagnetic fields affect the accumulation of 99mTechnetium - methylendiphosphonate (Tc-MDP) in fresh fractures. Thirty women with Colles' fractures, aged 50-70 years, participated in this study--some in a control group and some in a treated group. After reduction, all patients were immobilized for four weeks. After randomization, 15 patients were treated by electromagnetic fields of extremely low frequency (EMF of ELF ), which were generated by a coil and a battery-powered portable current generator during the time of immobilization. The frequency of the alternating magnetic field was 1-1000 Hz; the magnitude was 4 gauss [RMS (root-mean-square) value]. The scintigrams were performed one, two, four, and eight weeks after the injury. The activity ratio in the fracture area was significantly higher at the examination of one and two weeks (p less than 0.05, p less than 0.01) in the treated group than it was in the control group. The clinical relevance of the results is not known, but one interpretation of the data is that the stimulation with EMF of ELF improves (accelerates) the early phase of fracture healing. The data warrant further investigation of fresh fracture treatment with this method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6233054

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  9 in total

1.  Flexible magnets are not effective in decreasing pain perception and recovery time after muscle microinjury.

Authors:  P A Borsa; C L Liggett
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  A not-so-systematic review.

Authors:  Peter Heeckt; Hans Goost; Sheldon S Lin; Todd O McKinley; Samir Mehta; Yuko Mikuni-Takagaki
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 3.  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

4.  Fracture healing and drug therapies in osteoporosis.

Authors:  Amy Hoang-Kim; Letizia Gelsomini; Deianira Luciani; Antonio Moroni; Sandro Giannini
Journal:  Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab       Date:  2009-05

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.  Therapeutic Magnets Do Not Affect Tissue Temperatures.

Authors:  Kathleen B. Sweeney; Mark A. Merrick; Christopher D. Ingersoll; John A. Swez
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 2.860

7.  Electromagnetic stimulation as coadjuvant in the healing of diaphyseal femoral fractures: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Alfredo Martinez-Rondanelli; Juan Pablo Martinez; María E Moncada; Eliana Manzi; Carlos Rafael Pinedo; Hector Cadavid
Journal:  Colomb Med (Cali)       Date:  2014-06-30

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

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

9.  Enhancement of differentiation and mineralisation of osteoblast-like cells by degenerate electrical waveform in an in vitro electrical stimulation model compared to capacitive coupling.

Authors:  Michelle Griffin; Anil Sebastian; James Colthurst; Ardeshir Bayat
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.