The effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound and pulsed electromagnetic fields bone growth stimulation in acute fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- 2.4k Downloads
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the best currently available evidence from randomized controlled trials comparing pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) or low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) bone growth stimulation with placebo for acute fractures.
Materials and methods
We performed a systematic literature search of the medical literature from 1980 to 2013 for randomized clinical trials concerning acute fractures in adults treated with PEMF or LIPUS. Two reviewers independently determined the strength of the included studies by assessing the risk of bias according to the criteria in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
Seven hundred and thirty-seven patients from 13 trials were included. Pooled results from 13 trials reporting proportion of nonunion showed no significant difference between PEMF or LIPUS and control. With regard to time to radiological union, we found heterogeneous results that significantly favoured PEMF or LIPUS bone growth stimulation only in non-operatively treated fractures or fractures of the upper limb. Furthermore, we found significant results that suggest that the use of PEMF or LIPUS in acute diaphyseal fractures may accelerate the time to clinical union.
Current evidence from randomized trials is insufficient to conclude a benefit of PEMF or LIPUS bone growth stimulation in reducing the incidence of nonunions when used for treatment in acute fractures. However, our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that PEMF or LIPUS can be beneficial in the treatment of acute fractures regarding time to radiological and clinical union. PEMF and LIPUS significantly shorten time to radiological union for acute fractures undergoing non-operative treatment and acute fractures of the upper limb. Furthermore, PEMF or LIPUS bone growth stimulation accelerates the time to clinical union for acute diaphyseal fractures.
KeywordsLow-intensity pulsed ultrasound Pulsed electromagnetic fields Fractures Healing Nonunion
Financial support for this study was received from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw, reference 171001004).
Conflict of interest
All named authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose. All named authors declare that they have no financial relationship with any organization that contributed to this study.
- 6.Higgins J, Altman DG (2008) Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series. Wiley, pp 187–241Google Scholar
- 9.Heckman JD, Ryaby JP, McCabe J, Frey JJ, Kilcoyne RF (1994) Acceleration of tibial fracture-healing by non-invasive, low-intensity pulsed ultrasound. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol 76(1):26–34Google Scholar
- 10.Kristiansen TK, Ryaby JP, McCabe J, Frey JJ, Roe LR (1997) Accelerated healing of distal radial fractures with the use of specific, low-intensity ultrasound. A multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol 79(7):961–973Google Scholar
- 21.Hannemann PF, Gottgens KW, van Wely BJ, Kolkman KA, Werre AJ, Poeze M et al (2012) The clinical and radiological outcome of pulsed electromagnetic field treatment for acute scaphoid fractures: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol 94(10):1403–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Sharrard WJ (1990) A double-blind trial of pulsed electromagnetic fields for delayed union of tibial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol 72(3):347–355Google Scholar
- 26.Bassett CA, Mitchell SN, Gaston SR (1981) Treatment of ununited tibial diaphyseal fractures with pulsing electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol 63(4):511–523Google Scholar