Combined magnetic field results in higher fusion rates than pulsed electromagnetic field bone stimulation after thoracolumbar fusion surgery

The Ankle Joint: Revision Ankle Fusion Options, Nonunion, Malunion, Protocol for Best Outcome

Ankle arthrodesis has been a time-tested procedure for osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis of the talus, deformity correction, and significant trauma of the ankle. Technique guides have created dissection pearls, ease of fixation, and arthroscopic techniques to mitigate complications of the procedure. Major complications, such as nonunion, malunion, or implant infection are the most worrisome and cumbersome complications to handle. The aim of this article is to provide the practicing surgeon evidence to provide innovative management techniques for nonunion, malunion, and infection following primary ankle arthrodesis.

Polymeric Orthosis with Electromagnetic Stimulator Controlled by Mobile Application for Bone Fracture Healing: Evaluation of Design Concepts for Medical Use

Background: The occurrence of bone fractures is increasing worldwide, mainly due to the health problems that follow the aging population. The use of additive manufacturing and electrical stimulators can be applied for bioactive achievements in bone healing. However, such technologies are difficult to be transferred to medical practice. This work aims to develop an orthosis with a combined magnetic field (CFM) electrostimulator that demonstrates concepts and design aspects that facilitate its use in a real scenario. Methods: A 3D-printed orthosis made of two meshes was manufactured using PLA for outer mechanical stabilization mesh and TPU for inner fixation mesh to avoid mobilization. A CFM stimulator of reduced dimension controlled by a mobile application was coupled onto the orthosis. The design concepts were evaluated by health professionals and their resistance to chemical agents commonly used in daily activities were tested. Their thermal, chemical and electrical properties were also characterized. Results: No degradation was observed after exposure to chemical agents. The CMF achieved proper intensity (20-40 µT). The thermal analysis indicated its appropriate use for being modelled during clinical assessment. Conclusion: An orthosis with a coupled electrostimulator that works with a combined magnetic field and is controlled by mobile application was developed, and it has advantageous characteristics when compared to traditional techniques for application in real medical environments.

Noninvasive electrical stimulation as an adjunct to fusion procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Noninvasive electrical stimulation represents a distinct group of devices used to augment fusion rates. However, data regarding outcomes of noninvasive electrical stimulation have come from a small number of studies. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine outcomes of noninvasive electrical stimulation used as an adjunct to fusion procedures to improve rates of successful fusion.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Clinical Trials database were searched according to search strategy and PRISMA guidelines. Random-effects meta-analyses of fusion rates with the three main modalities of noninvasive electrical stimulation, capacitively coupled stimulation (CCS), pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs), and combined magnetic fields (CMFs), were conducted using R version 4.1.0 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Both retrospective studies and clinical trials were included. Animal studies were excluded. Risk-of-bias analysis was performed with the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools.

RESULTS

Searches of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Clinical Trials database identified 8 articles with 1216 participants meeting criteria from 213 initial results. There was a high overall risk of bias identified for the majority of randomized studies. No meta-analysis could be performed for CCS as only 1 study was identified. Meta-analysis of 6 studies of fusion rates in PEMF did not find any difference between treatment and control groups (OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.36-9.80, p = 0.449). Meta-analysis of 2 studies of CMF found no difference in fusion rates between control and treatment groups (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.07-11.93, p = 0.939). Subgroup analysis of PEMF was limited given the small number of studies and patients, although significantly increased fusion rates were seen in some subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and fusion rates in noninvasive electrical stimulation compared to no stimulation did not identify any increases in fusion rates for any modality. A high degree of heterogeneity between studies was noted. Although subgroup analysis identified significant differences in fusion rates in certain groups, these findings were based on a small number of studies and further research is needed. This analysis does not support routine use of these devices to augment fusion rates, although the data are limited by a high risk of bias and a small number of available studies.