Advertisement

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 134, Issue 8, pp 1093–1106 | Cite as

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

  • P. F. W. Hannemann
  • E. H. H. Mommers
  • J. P. M. Schots
  • P. R. G. Brink
  • M. Poeze
Trauma Surgery

Abstract

Introduction

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound Pulsed electromagnetic fields Fractures Healing Nonunion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Molen AB, Groothoff JW, Visser GJ, Robinson PH, Eisma WH (1999) Time off work due to scaphoid fractures and other carpal injuries in The Netherlands in the period 1990 to 1993. J Hand Surg 24(2):193–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonafede M, Espindle D, Bower AG (2013) The direct and indirect costs of long bone fractures in a working age US population. J Med Econ 16(1):169–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Griffin XL, Costello I, Costa ML (2008) The role of low intensity pulsed ultrasound therapy in the management of acute fractures: a systematic review. J Trauma 65(6):1446–1452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walker NA, Denegar CR, Preische J (2007) Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound and pulsed electromagnetic field in the treatment of tibial fractures: a systematic review. J Athl Train 42(4):530–535PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 7.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21(11):1539–1558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. 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
  11. 11.
    Emami A, Petren-Mallmin M, Larsson S (1999) No effect of low-intensity ultrasound on healing time of intramedullary fixed tibial fractures. J Orthop Trauma 13(4):252–257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mayr E, Rudzki MM, Rudzki M, Borchardt B, Hausser H, Ruter A (2000) Does low intensity, pulsed ultrasound speed healing of scaphoid fractures? Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 32(2):115–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leung KS, Lee WS, Tsui HF, Liu PP, Cheung WH (2004) Complex tibial fracture outcomes following treatment with low-intensity pulsed ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 30(3):389–395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Handolin L, Kiljunen V, Arnala I, Kiuru MJ, Pajarinen J, Partio EK et al (2005) No long-term effects of ultrasound therapy on bioabsorbable screw-fixed lateral malleolar fracture. Scand J Surg 94(3):239–242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Handolin L, Kiljunen V, Arnala I, Kiuru MJ, Pajarinen J, Partio EK et al (2005) Effect of ultrasound therapy on bone healing of lateral malleolar fractures of the ankle joint fixed with bioabsorbable screws. J Orthop Sci 10(4):391–395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Handolin L, Kiljunen V, Arnala I, Pajarinen J, Partio EK, Rokkanen P (2005) The effect of low intensity ultrasound and bioabsorbable self-reinforced poly-l-lactide screw fixation on bone in lateral malleolar fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 125(5):317–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lubbert PH, van der Rijt RH, Hoorntje LE, van der Werken C (2008) Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) in fresh clavicle fractures: a multi-centre double blind randomised controlled trial. Injury 39(12):1444–1452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rue JP, Armstrong DW 3rd, Frassica FJ, Deafenbaugh M, Wilckens JH (2004) The effect of pulsed ultrasound in the treatment of tibial stress fractures. Orthopedics 27(11):1192–1195PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Faldini C, Cadossi M, Deianira L, Betti E, Chiarello E, Giannini S (2010) Electromagnetic bone growth stimulation in patients with femoral neck fractures treated with screws: prospective randomized double-blind study. Curr Orthop Pract 21(3):282–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Adie S, Harris IA, Naylor JM, Rae H, Dao A, Yong S et al (2011) Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation for acute tibial shaft fractures: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol 93(17):1569–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 22.
    Ardan NI Jr, Janes JM, Herrick JF (1954) Changes in bone after exposure to ultrasonic energy. Minn Med 37(6):415–420PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Borsalino G, Bagnacani M, Bettati E, Fornaciari F, Rocchi R, Uluhogian S et al (1988) Electrical stimulation of human femoral intertrochanteric osteotomies. Double-blind study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 237:256–263PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Azuma Y, Ito M, Harada Y, Takagi H, Ohta T, Jingushi S (2001) Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound accelerates rat femoral fracture healing by acting on the various cellular reactions in the fracture callus. J Bone Miner Res 16(4):671–680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. 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
  27. 27.
    Nolte PA, van der Krans A, Patka P, Janssen IM, Ryaby JP, Albers GH (2001) Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound in the treatment of nonunions. J Trauma 51(4):693–702 discussion-3CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schofer MD, Block JE, Aigner J, Schmelz A (2010) Improved healing response in delayed unions of the tibia with low-intensity pulsed ultrasound: results of a randomized sham-controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:229CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bashardoust Tajali S, Houghton P, MacDermid JC, Grewal R (2012) Effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound therapy on fracture healing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabilitation Assoc Acad Physiatr 91(4):349–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Poolman RW, Abouali JA, Conter HJ, Bhandari M (2007) Overlapping systematic reviews of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing hamstring autograft with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: why are they different? J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol 89(7):1542–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bhandari M, Fong K, Sprague S, Williams D, Petrisor B (2012) Variability in the definition and perceived causes of delayed unions and nonunions: a cross-sectional, multinational survey of orthopaedic surgeons. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol 94(15):e1091–e1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Corrales LA, Morshed S, Bhandari M, Miclau T 3rd (2008) Variability in the assessment of fracture-healing in orthopaedic trauma studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol 90(9):1862–1868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Button ML, Sprague S, Gharsaa O, Latouche S, Bhandari M (2009) Economic evaluation of bone stimulation modalities: a systematic review of the literature. Indian J Orthop 43(2):168–174CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. F. W. Hannemann
    • 1
  • E. H. H. Mommers
    • 1
  • J. P. M. Schots
    • 1
  • P. R. G. Brink
    • 1
  • M. Poeze
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery and TraumasurgeryMaastricht University Medical CentreMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations