Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation for acute tibial shaft fractures: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial
- PMID: 21915570
- DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00869
Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation for acute tibial shaft fractures: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial
Abstract
Background: Tibial shaft fractures are sometimes complicated by delayed union and nonunion, necessitating further surgical interventions. Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation is an effective treatment for delayed unions and nonunions, but its efficacy in preventing healing complications in patients with acute fractures is largely untested. The purpose of this pragmatic trial was to determine whether adjuvant pulsed electromagnetic field therapy for acute tibial shaft fractures reduces the rate of surgical revision because of delayed union or nonunion.
Methods: In a double-blind randomized trial involving six metropolitan trauma hospitals, 259 participants with acute tibial shaft fractures (AO/OTA type 42) were randomized by means of external allocation to externally identical active and inactive pulsed electromagnetic field devices. Participants were instructed to wear the device for ten hours daily for twelve weeks. Management was otherwise unaltered. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants requiring a secondary surgical intervention because of delayed union or nonunion within twelve months after the injury. Secondary outcomes included surgical intervention for any reason, radiographic union at six months, and the Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary and Lower Extremity Functional Scales at twelve months. Main analyses were by intention to treat.
Results: Two hundred and eighteen participants (84%) completed the twelve-month follow-up. One hundred and six patients were allocated to the active device group, and 112 were allocated to the placebo group. Compliance was moderate, with 6.2 hours of average daily use. Overall, sixteen patients in the active group and fifteen in the inactive group experienced a primary outcome event (risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.95 to 1.14; p = 0.72). According to per-protocol analysis, there were six primary events (12.2%) in the active, compliant group and twenty-six primary events (15.1%) in the combined placebo and active, noncompliant group (risk ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.10; p = 0.61). No between-group differences were found with regard to surgical intervention for any reason, radiographic union, or functional measures.
Conclusions: Adjuvant pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation does not prevent secondary surgical interventions for delayed union or nonunion and does not improve radiographic union or patient-reported functional outcomes in patients with acute tibial shaft fractures.
Similar articles
-
Health outcomes of delayed union and nonunion of femoral and tibial shaft fractures.Injury. 2014 Oct;45(10):1653-8. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.06.025. Epub 2014 Jul 7. Injury. 2014. PMID: 25062602
-
Pulsed electromagnetic fields for the treatment of tibial delayed unions and nonunions. A prospective clinical study and review of the literature.J Orthop Surg Res. 2012 Jun 8;7:24. doi: 10.1186/1749-799X-7-24. J Orthop Surg Res. 2012. PMID: 22681718 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Percutaneous autologous bone marrow injection in the treatment of distal meta-diaphyseal tibial nonunions and delayed unions.J Orthop Trauma. 2013 Sep;27(9):527-33. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31828bf077. J Orthop Trauma. 2013. PMID: 23443050
-
Open reduction and plate fixation versus nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Sep 4;95(17):1576-84. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00307. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013. PMID: 24005198 Clinical Trial.
-
Prediction of delayed union of tibial shaft fracture treated with intramedullary nailing: multicenter-study analysis and literature review -the TRON study.Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2022 Jan;32(1):129-135. doi: 10.1007/s00590-021-02939-9. Epub 2021 Mar 24. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2022. PMID: 33760997 Review.
Cited by
-
Efficacy of Electrical Stimulators for Bone Healing: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Sham-Controlled Trials.Sci Rep. 2016 Aug 19;6:31724. doi: 10.1038/srep31724. Sci Rep. 2016. PMID: 27539550 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (PEMF)-Physiological Response and Its Potential in Trauma Treatment.Int J Mol Sci. 2023 Jul 8;24(14):11239. doi: 10.3390/ijms241411239. Int J Mol Sci. 2023. PMID: 37510998 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Low-intensity pulsed ultrasonography versus electrical stimulation for fracture healing: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Can J Surg. 2014 Jun;57(3):E105-18. doi: 10.1503/cjs.010113. Can J Surg. 2014. PMID: 24869616 Free PMC article.
-
3D‑printed Ti6Al4V scaffolds combined with pulse electromagnetic fields enhance osseointegration in osteoporosis.Mol Med Rep. 2021 Jun;23(6):410. doi: 10.3892/mmr.2021.12049. Epub 2021 Mar 31. Mol Med Rep. 2021. PMID: 33786622 Free PMC article.
-
Translational Insights into Extremely Low Frequency Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (ELF-PEMFs) for Bone Regeneration after Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery.J Clin Med. 2019 Nov 20;8(12):2028. doi: 10.3390/jcm8122028. J Clin Med. 2019. PMID: 31756999 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical