Regenerate bone stimulation following limb lengthening: a meta-analysis

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Research Article

Julio J. Jauregui¹  John E. Herzenberg²  Anthony V. Ventimiglia³  David B. Frumberg³  Preston W. Grieco³ 

[1] Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland Medical Center, 110 S. Paca Street, 6th Floor, Suite 300, 21201, Baltimore, Maryland, USA;Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopedics, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, 2401 West Belvedere Avenue, 21215, Baltimore, Maryland, USA;SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, 450 Clarkson Avenue, 11203, Brooklyn, New York, USA;

关键词: Distraction;    Osteogenesis;    Fixation;    Regenerate;    Ultrasound;    Limb;    Bone Lengthening;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12891-016-1259-5

 received in 2016-05-25, accepted in 2016-09-14,  发布年份 2016

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundLimb lengthening with external fixation is performed to treat patients with leg length discrepancy or short stature. Although the procedure has a high rate of success, one potential drawback from limb lengthening is the amount of time spent in the fixation device while regenerate bone consolidates. Although some studies have assessed different treatment modalities, there has not been a study that has systematically evaluated whether low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) or pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) have significant effects on regenerate bone growth. The purpose of this study was to evaluate these two non-pharmacological treatment options to stimulate regenerate bone, and to assess whether they affect the treatment time in limb lengthening.MethodsUtilizing the electronic databases Medline, Embase and Ovid, we performed a literature search for studies describing the application of LIPUS or PEMF following limb lengthening. With the aid of a statistical software package, Forest-Plots were generated to compare the differences in bone healing index with and without the use of regenerate bone stimulation.ResultsA total of 7 studies assessed these two bone stimulation modalities in a cohort of 153 patients. Overall, the mean healing index was 11.7 days/cm faster when using bone stimulation that in the comparison cohorts (33.7 vs 45.4 day, standardized mean difference of 1.16; p = 0.003).ConclusionAmongst the drawbacks from limb lengthening is the relatively high rate of non- and delayed-union. Several methods, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, have been investigated for their potential to stimulate the growth of regenerate bone. After systematically evaluating the limited and heterogeneous current literature, we found that LIPUS and PEMF both decreased the time for bone healing (healing index in days/cm) of the newly formed regenerate bone in an adequately selected cohort of patients that underwent limb lengthening. However, a high number of complications should be noted, which could be attributed to the lengthening procedure or to the additional bone stimulation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016039024

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s). 2016