Electrical stimulation: Effective cue to direct osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells?

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) play a major role in bone tissue engineering (BTE) thanks to their capacity for osteogenic differentiation and being easily available. In vivo, MSCs are exposed to an electroactive microenvironment in the bone niche, which has piezoelectric properties. The correlation between the electrically active milieu and bone's ability to adapt to mechanical stress and self-regenerate has led to using electrical stimulation (ES) as physical cue to direct MSCs differentiation towards the osteogenic lineage in BTE. This review summarizes the different techniques to electrically stimulate MSCs to induce their osteoblastogenesis in vitro, including general electrical stimulation and substrate mediated stimulation by means of conductive or piezoelectric cell culture supports. Several aspects are covered, including stimulation parameters, treatment times and cell culture media to summarize the best conditions for inducing MSCs osteogenic commitment by electrical stimulation, from a critical point of view. Electrical stimulation activates different signaling pathways, including bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) Smad-dependent or independent, regulated by mitogen activated protein kinases (MAPK), extracellular signal-regulated kinases (ERK) and p38. The roles of voltage gate calcium channels (VGCC) and integrins are also highlighted according to their application technique and parameters, mainly converging in the expression of RUNX2, the master regulator of the osteogenic differentiation pathway. Despite the evident lack of homogeneity in the approaches used, the ever-increasing scientific evidence confirms ES potential as an osteoinductive cue, mimicking aspects of the in vivo microenvironment and moving one step forward to the translation of this approach into clinic.

Effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation and ibuprofen for pain caused by necrosis of the femoral head: A retrospective study

This retrospective study analyzed the effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for pain relief caused by necrosis of femoral head (NFH).Totally, 80 cases of patients with NFH were analyzed and then were assigned to a treatment group or a control group in this study. Of these, 40 cases in the treatment group received ibuprofen and NMES therapy. The other 40 cases in the control group received ibuprofen alone. Cases in both groups were treated for a total of 6 weeks. The primary outcome of pain intensity was measured by a visual analog scale (VAS). The secondary outcome was assessed by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). In addition, adverse events (AEs) were also recorded in each case. All outcomes were evaluated before and after the treatment.After treatment, patients in the treatment group showed more effectiveness in pain relief, as measured by VAS (P < .01) and WOMAC sub-pain scale (P < .01), except stiffness, as evaluated by WOMAC sub-stiffness scale (P = .07), and function, as assessed by WOMAC sub-function scale (P = .09), than patients in the control group. Additionally, no significant differences in AEs were detected between 2 groups.This study found that NMES may be helpful for pain relief in patients with NFH.

Biophysical stimulation of bone and cartilage: state of the art and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Biophysical stimulation is a non-invasive therapy used in orthopaedic practice to increase and enhance reparative and anabolic activities of tissue.

METHODS

A sistematic web-based search for papers was conducted using the following titles: (1) pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF), capacitively coupled electrical field (CCEF), low intensity pulsed ultrasound system (LIPUS) and biophysical stimulation; (2) bone cells, bone tissue, fracture, non-union, prosthesis and vertebral fracture; and (3) chondrocyte, synoviocytes, joint chondroprotection, arthroscopy and knee arthroplasty.

RESULTS

Pre-clinical studies have shown that the site of interaction of biophysical stimuli is the cell membrane. Its effect on bone tissue is to increase proliferation, synthesis and release of growth factors. On articular cells, it creates a strong A_2A and A₃ adenosine-agonist effect inducing an anti-inflammatory and chondroprotective result. In treated animals, it has been shown that the mineralisation rate of newly formed bone is almost doubled, the progression of the osteoarthritic cartilage degeneration is inhibited and quality of cartilage is preserved. Biophysical stimulation has been used in the clinical setting to promote the healing of fractures and non-unions. It has been successfully used on joint pathologies for its beneficial effect on improving function in early OA and after knee surgery to limit the inflammation of periarticular tissues.

DISCUSSION

The pooled result of the studies in this review revealed the efficacy of biophysical stimulation for bone healing and joint chondroprotection based on proven methodological quality.

CONCLUSION

The orthopaedic community has played a central role in the development and understanding of the importance of the physical stimuli. Biophysical stimulation requires care and precision in use if it is to ensure the success expected of it by physicians and patients.

The role of electrical stimulation in the management of avascular necrosis of the femoral head in adults: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Avascular necrosis of the femoral head causes significant morbidity and occurs in up to 20,000 people per year. A variety of nonoperative and operative measures have been trialled however a definitive treatment algorithm is yet to be established. Young adults in many cases have undergone multiple surgical procedures in their lifetime with increasing risks of complications. Less invasive techniques may help reduce the number of operations required and positively influence the natural history of the disease process. Our aim was to navigate the literature and examine the results of electrical stimulation of the femoral head in avascular necrosis.

METHODS

The following defined search strategy was used to perform a systematic review using MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases: ((avascular necrosis) OR (osteonecrosis)) AND (femoral head) AND ((electrical stimulation) OR (capacitive coupling) OR (pulsed electromagnetic fields)). Articles were reviewed and data compiled into tables for analysis.

RESULTS

Fourty six articles were identified with a total of 10 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. 8 articles were prospective studies and 2 were retrospective. Early Ficat stages showed the best responses to treatment via pulsed electromagnetic fields with improvements in both clinical and radiographic parameters. Direct current and capacitative coupling have had a more ambiguous outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Pulsed electromagnetic fields may have a role in the management of early avascular necrosis. The paucity of clinical studies into this technique indicates a need for further studies.