Cartilage Differentiation and Bone Healing

  • M. Hinsenkamp
Chapter

Abstract

Application of time varying electromagnetic fields (EMF) is advocated to be useful in the treatment of non unions, fresh fractures and avascular necrosis. Beside the teleological hypothesis connecting the dynamic endogenous potential produced by the cyclic mechanical strains to the activation of osteogenesis, no satisfying mechanism explains the biological response to low frequency weak EMF exposure.

Keywords

External Fixation Avascular Necrosis Healing Time Fresh Fracture Cartilaginous Matrix 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Burger E., Klein-Nulend J., Veldhuijzen J.: Modulation of osteogenesis in fetal bone rudimenty by mechanical stress in vitro. J. Biomech., 24 (Supp. 1): 101–109, (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bumy F.: Biomécanique de la consolidation des fractures, Thèse d’Agrégation, Université Libre de Bruxelles; pp. 197, (1976).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chiabrera A., Hinsenkamp M., Pilla A., Ryaby J., Ponta D., Belmont A., Beltrame F., Grattarola M., Nicolini C.: Cytofluorometry of electromagnetically controlled cell dedifferentiation. J. Histochem. Cytochem., 27: 375–381, (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chiabrera A., Viviani R., Parodi G., Vemazza G., Hinsenkamp M., Pilla A., Ryaby J., Beltrame F., Grattarola M., Nicolini C.: Automated absorption image cytometry of electromagnetically exposed frog erythrocytes, Cytomeny,: 42–48, (1980).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dziewiatkowksi D.:Theroleofsulfated proteinpolysaccharides in calcification. Clin. Orthop., 35: 189–201, (1964).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gossling H., Bernstein R., Abbott J.: Treatment of ununited tibial fractures: a comparison of surgery and pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF). Orthopaedics,15 (6): 711–719, (1992).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hinsenkamp M.: Treatment of non-unions by electromagnetic stimulation. Acta Orthop. Scand., Suppl. 196: 63–80, (1982)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hinsenkamp M.: Die Behandlung von Falschgelenkbildung mit der elektromagnetischen Stimulation. Extracta Orthop. 6: 13 29, (1983).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hinsenkamp M.: Stimulation électromagnétique de la croissance et de la consolidation osseuse. Thèse d’Agrégé de I’Enseignement Supérieur de I’U.L.B.: pp 381, (1990).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hinsenkamp M.: Stimulation électromagnétique de I’ostéogénèse et de la consolidation des fractures. Mémoire de l’Académie Royale, Classe des Sciences: pp 338, (1994).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hinsenkamp M.: 15 Years experience in electromagnetic stimulation of bone growth and repair. J. Jpn. Bioelect. Res. Soc., 8: 110.(1994).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hinsenkamp M., Bourgois R., Bassett C.A.L., Chiabrera A., Bumy F., Ryaby J.: Electromagnetic stimulation of fracture repair. Influence on healing of fresh fractures. Acta Orthop. Belg., 44: 671–698. (1978).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hinsenkamp M., Chiabrera A., Ryaby J., Pilla A., Bassett C.A.L.: Cell behaviour and DNA modification in pulsing electromagnetic fields. Acta Orthop. Belg., 44: 636–650, (1978).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hinsenkamp M., Tuerlinckx B., Rooze M.: Effect of ELF fields on bone growth and fracture repair. In: “Biological effects and dosimetry of static and ELF electromagnetic fields”, (Eds.: M. Grandolfo, S. Michaelson and A. Rindi), Plenum Press: 441–476, 1985.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hinsenkamp M., Rooze M.: Morphological effect of electromagnetic stimulation on limb skeleton of the new bommouse. Acta Orthop. Scand., Suppl. 196: 39–50, (1982)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hinsenkamp M., Bumy F., Donkerwolcke M., Coussaert E.: Electromagnetic stimulation of fresh fractures treated with Hoffmann external fixation. Orthopedics 7: 411–416, (1984).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hinsenkamp M., Ryaby J., Bumy F.: Treatment of non-union by pulsing electromagnetic field: European multicenter study of 308 cases. Reconstr. Surg. Traumat., 19: 147–151, (1985).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hinsenkamp M., Schoutens A.: Evolution of radionuclide scintimetry of non-unions treated by electromagnetic stimulation. Preliminary study. Reconstr. Surg. Tiaunmt., 19: 113–117, (1985).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hinsenkamp M., Rooze M., Noorbergen M, Tuerlinckx B., Coussaert E.: Topography of EM exposure and its relationship to biological effects on tissues. In: “Interactions between electromagnetic fields and cells”, (Eds.: A. Chiabrera, C. Nicolini and H. Schwan), Plenum Press: 557–567, (1985).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Hinsenkamp
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and TraumatologyErasmus Hospital - Brussels UniversityBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations