Pulsed electromagnetic fields for the treatment of tibial delayed unions and nonunions. A prospective clinical study and review of the literature

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Byron E Chalidis²  Nick P Sachinis²  Aggelos Assiotis¹ 

[1] Charring Cross Hospital, Orthopaedic Department, London, UK;Interbalkan Medical Center, 10 Asklipiou Str, Pilaia, Thessaloniki, 57001, Greece

关键词: Delayed union;    Nonunion;    Fracture;    Tibia;    PEMF;   

Others  :  817906
DOI  :  10.1186/1749-799X-7-24

 received in 2012-01-08, accepted in 2012-06-01,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) stimulation for the treatment of bone nonunion or delayed union have been in use for several years, but on a limited basis. The aim of this study was to assess the overall efficacy of the method in tibial delayed unions and nonunions and identify factors that could affect the final outcome.

Methods

We prospectively reviewed 44 patients (27 men) with a mean age of 49.6 ± 18.4 years that received PEMF therapy due to tibial shaft delayed union or nonunion. In all cases, fracture gap was less than 1 cm and infection or soft tissue defects were absent.

Results

Fracture union was confirmed in 34 cases (77.3%). No relationship was found between union rate and age (p = 0.819), fracture side (left or right) (p = 0.734), fracture type (simple or comminuted, open or closed) (p = 0.111), smoking (p = 0.245), diabetes (p = 0.68) and initial treatment method applied (plates, nail, plaster of paris) (p = 0.395). The time of treatment onset didn’t affect the incidence of fracture healing (p = 0.841). Although statistical significance was not demonstrated, longer treatment duration showed a trend of increased probability of union (p = 0.081).

Conclusion

PEMF stimulation is an effective non-invasive method for addressing non-infected tibial union abnormalities. Its success is not associated with specific fracture or patient related variables and it couldn’t be clearly considered a time-dependent phenomenon.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Assiotis et al.; Licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1 .

Figure 2 .

Figure 3 .

Figure 4 .

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Victoria G, Petrisor B, Drew B, Dick D: Bone stimulation for fracture healing: What's all the fuss? Indian journal of orthopaedics 2009, 43:117-120.
• [2]Kanakaris NK, Paliobeis C, Nlanidakis N, Giannoudis PV: Biological enhancement of tibial diaphyseal aseptic non-unions: the efficacy of autologous bone grafting, BMPs and reaming by-products. Injury 2007, 38(Suppl 2):S65-S75.
• [3]Nolte P, van der Krans A, Patka P, Janssen I, Ryaby J, Albers G: Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound in the treatment of nonunions. J Trauma 2001, 51:693-702.
• [4]Gustilo RB, Anderson JT: Prevention of infection in the treatment of one thousand and twenty-five open fractures of long bones: retrospective and prospective analyses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1976, 58:453-458.
• [5]The classic: Fundamental aspects of fracture treatment by Iwao Yasuda, reprinted from. J. Kyoto Med. Soc. 1953, 4:395-406. Clinical orthopaedics and related research 1977, 124:5–8
• [6]Hannouche D, Petite H, Sedel L: Current trends in the enhancement of fracture healing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001, 83:157-164.
• [7]Kooistra BW, Jain A, Hanson BP: Electrical stimulation: Nonunions. Indian J Orthop 2009, 43:149-155.
• [8]Mollon B, da Silva V, Busse J, Einhorn T, Bhandari M: Electrical stimulation for long-bone fracture-healing: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008, 90:2322-2330.
• [9]Aaron R, Ciombor D, Simon B: Treatment of nonunions with electric and electromagnetic fields. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004, 419:21-29.
• [10]Ciombor D, Aaron R: The role of electrical stimulation in bone repair. Foot Ankle Clin 2005, 10:579-593.
• [11]Kuzyk PR, Schemitsch EH: The science of electrical stimulation therapy for fracture healing. Indian J Orthop 2009, 43:127-131.
• [12]Barker AT, Dixon RA, Sharrard WJ, Sutcliffe ML: Pulsed magnetic field therapy for tibial non-union. Interim results of a double-blind trial. Lancet 1984, 1:994-996.
• [13]Bassett CA, Mitchell SN, Gaston SR: Treatment of ununited tibial diaphyseal fractures with pulsing electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1981, 63:511-523.
• [14]de Haas WG, Beaupre A, Cameron H, English E: The Canadian experience with pulsed magnetic fields in the treatment of ununited tibial fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986, 208:55-58.
• [15]de Haas WG, Watson J, Morrison DM: Non-invasive treatment of ununited fractures of the tibia using electrical stimulation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1980, 62-B:465-470.
• [16]Sharrard WJ: A double-blind trial of pulsed electromagnetic fields for delayed union of tibial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1990, 72:347-355.
• [17]Sharrard WJ, Sutcliffe ML, Robson MJ, Maceachern AG: The treatment of fibrous non-union of fractures by pulsing electromagnetic stimulation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1982, 64:189-193.
• [18]Simonis R, Parnell E, Ray P, Peacock J: Electrical treatment of tibial non-union: a prospective, randomised, double-blind trial. Injury 2003, 34:357-362.
• [19]Gupta AK, Srivastava KP, Avasthi S: Pulsed electromagnetic stimulation in nonunion of tibial diaphyseal fractures. Indian J Orthop 2009, 43:156-160.
• [20]Scott G, King J: A prospective, double-blind trial of electrical capacitive coupling in the treatment of non-union of long bones. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994, 76:820-826.