Neurobionplus
Home About Journal AHEAD OF PRINT Current Issue Back Issues Instructions Submission Search Subscribe Blog    
Login 

Users Online: 1246 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
 


 
SYMPOSIUM Table of Contents   
Year : 2009  |  Volume : 43  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 127-131
The science of electrical stimulation therapy for fracture healing


Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Click here for correspondence address and email
 

   Abstract 

This article is a brief review of the basic science research conducted in the field of electrical stimulation for fracture healing. Direct electrical current, capacitive coupling, and inductive coupling have been studied as potential techniques to enhance fracture healing through the proliferation and differentiation of osteogenic cells. These techniques are particularly appealing as they offer a potential minimally invasive solution to the difficult clinical problem of delayed fracture healing and nonunion. Basic science studies have shown conclusively that electrical stimulation techniques lead to bone cell proliferation and have attempted to elucidate the intracellular processes by which this bone cell proliferation occurs. Further basic science and clinical research is required to enhance the effectiveness of this therapy for the treatment of fracture nonunions.

Keywords: Electrical stimulation, fracture healing, direct electrical current, capacitive coupling, inductive coupling

How to cite this article:
Kuzyk PR, Schemitsch EH. The science of electrical stimulation therapy for fracture healing. Indian J Orthop 2009;43:127-31

How to cite this URL:
Kuzyk PR, Schemitsch EH. The science of electrical stimulation therapy for fracture healing. Indian J Orthop [serial online] 2009 [cited 2019 Aug 19];43:127-31. Available from: http://www.ijoonline.com/text.asp?2009/43/2/127/50846

   Introduction Top


The relationship between physical forces and bone biology has been recognized since the early 1800s. [1],[2] Mechanical forces (compression, distraction, and shear), electrical forces, magnetic forces, and ultrasonic waves have all been found to exert some level of effect on bone growth and healing. [3],[4],[5],[6] Electrical stimulation of bone has been touted as an effective and noninvasive method for enhancing bone healing, and treating fracture nonunion. Unfortunately, clinical evidence for the efficacy of electrical stimulation is limited. A recent meta-analysis by Mollon et al. could only identify four randomized controlled trials evaluating the clinical use of electrical stimulation to treat delayed union and nonunion of fractures. [7] Despite the lack of clinical evidence, many in vitro and in vivo studies demonstrate the usefulness of electrical stimulation in bone healing at a cellular level. Furthermore, these studies provide us with an understanding of the underlying cellular mechanism by which electrical stimulation influences fracture healing.


   Basic Science of Electrical Stimulation of Bone Top


The mechanical stress applied on bone results in the generation of electrical potentials. [8],[9] Electronegative potentials are generated with compression and electropositive potentials are generated with tension. Piezoelectric properties of the collagen matrix and electrokinetic effects (or streaming potentials) cause these electric potentials in response to the mechanical environment. [10] It has been shown that bone is formed under electronegative potentials and resorbed under electropositive potentials. [11] It is thought that this electrical stimulation is the path through which bone forms in response to applied load.

The observation regarding the electrical nature of bone osteogenesis has spurred the development and investigation of techniques for applying electrical fields to fracture sites in an effort to promote healing. Three techniques for the application of electrical stimulation in fracture healing have been described, which include direct electrical current, capacitive coupling, and inductive coupling [Table 1].

Electrical stimulation techniques have been applied to acute fractures, delayed unions, nonunions, and joint arthrodesis. Contraindications to electrical stimulation include segmental bone loss at the fracture site, synovial pseudoarthrosis, congential pseudoarthrosis, infected nonunions, and poor mechanical stability of the fracture site. In these clinical scenarios, surgical management to bone graft defects, eradicate infection, or stabilize the fracture with internal fixation is required before electrical stimulation can be considered. Electrical stimulation should be thought of as an adjunct to, not a replacement for, standard fracture care. We will examine each of the three methods of electrical stimulation in detail.


   Direct Electrical Current Top


Direct electrical current techniques are invasive and involve the implantation of one or multiple cathodes into the bone [Figure 1]. An anode is typically placed on the skin over the fracture site and a 5 to 100µA current is delivered. [12] In 1981, Brighton et al. published a case series using direct electrical stimulation via four cathodes surgically implanted into a fracture nonunion site for 12 weeks (Level IV Evidence). [13] They found that four 20-µA cathodes applied for 12 weeks produced solid bony union in 129 of 168 fracture nonunions (i.e., 76.8% union). The authors suggested that the presence of a synovial pseudoarthrosis, a large bone gap at the fracture site, or an osteomyelitis were contraindications to electrical stimulation therapy and therefore removed these patients from their clinical series. Direct electrical current has also been used to promote healing of spinal fusion, ankle fusions and charcot foot reconstructions. [14],[15],[16]

An electrochemical reaction occurring at the cathode is thought to, in part, result in the osteogenic effects of direct electrical stimulation. A faradic reaction at the cathode has been shown to lower oxygen concentration, increase pH, and produce hydrogen peroxide. [17] Such a decrease in oxygen concentration has been found to enhance osteoblastic activity, whereas basic environments have been shown to both increase osteoblastic activity and decrease osteoclastic activity. [18] The direct electrical current also results in increased proteoglycan and collagen synthesis. In addition, hydrogen peroxide may stimulate macrophages to release vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), an angiogenic factor that is critical for osteogenesis. [19],[20]


   Capacitive Coupling Top


Capacitive coupling is a noninvasive technique that involves placing two electrodes on the skin overlying the fracture such that the fracture site lies between the electrodes [Figure 2]. An alternating current is then used to create an electrical field within the fracture site. Potentials of 1-10 V at frequencies of 20-200 kHz are applied to the electrodes, which result in the development of electric fields of 1-100 mV/cm at the fracture site. [21]

Brighton et al. found that the electrical field strength played a major role in determining the proliferation of bone cells when exposed to a capacitive coupling electric field. [22] Stimulation of proliferation of rat calvarial bone cells was measured by [3] H thymidine incorporation into DNA and alkaline phosphatase production.They found that an electrical field strength of 0.1-10 mV/cm induced proliferation of rat calvarial bone cells, and electrical field strengths less than 0.1 mV/cm did not induce proliferation.

Korenstein et al. found that there was a dose-dependent response to capacitive coupled fields whereby greater electrical field strength leads to greater proliferative response in osteoblast cells. [23] An increase in the time the bone cells are exposed to the electrical field (or "duty cycle" of the capacitive coupling) has also been shown to increase bone cell proliferation. [24]

The chemical pathway by which capacitive coupling acts on the bone cell to cause proliferation and osteogenesis is a matter of current study. [25] Bone cell proliferation resulting from capacitive coupling is accompanied by an increase in intracellular calcium concentration. It has been shown that the proliferative response of bone cells to a capacitive coupling is mediated by calcium translocation via voltage-gated calcium channels. Lorich et al. found that verapamil (a voltage-gated calcium channel blocker) halted the bone cell proliferation seen with capacitive coupling, whereas neomycin (a blocker of the inositol phosphate pathway) had no effect on this proliferation. [26] A further study revealed that bromophenacyl bromide (an inhibiter of phospholipase A), indomethacin (an inhibiter of prostaglandin synthesis), and W-7 (a calmodulin antagonist) has a similar effect on bone cell proliferation. [27] These studies suggest that, for capacitive coupling, signal transduction results from calcium ion translocation through voltage-gated calcium channels that leads to increases in prostaglandin, cytosolic calcium, and activated calmodulin [Figure 3].

Wang et al. found that capacitive coupling up-regulates the mRNA expression for bone morphogenic proteins (BMPs)-2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7, and -8, as well as gremlin and noggin. [24] This increase in the production of growth factors that are important for the proliferation and differentiation of osteoblastic cells may represent an alternative mechanism by which capacitive coupling influences osteogenesis.


   Inductive Coupling Top


The third type of electrical stimulation used to enhance fracture healing is inductive coupling. Inductive coupling relies on the use of a pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) device that is placed on the skin over the fracture site [Figure 4]. The PEMF consists of a wire coil through which a current is passed and a magnetic field is generated. The magnetic field, in turn, induces an electrical field within the fracture site. The size of the electrical field that is induced within the fracture site is dependent on the magnitude of the magnetic field and the physical characteristics of the tissues surrounding and within the fracture site. The variability of the current flowing through the PEMF results in an induced magnetic field that is time variable, and thus the magnitude of an electrical field within the bone varies with time. Induced magnetic fields varying from 0.1 to 20G have been used to produce electrical fields varying from 1 to 100 mV/cm within bone. [28] This time-varying electrical field is thought to simulate the normal response of bone cells physiologically to applied mechanical stress. [29]

Interestingly, inductive coupling results in an increased bone cell proliferation with increased cytosolic calcium concentration similar to that seen with capacitive coupling. However, the chemical pathway is different. The increase in bone cell proliferation with inductive coupling was blocked by TMB-8 (blocks release of intracellular calcium) and W-7 (blocks activation of calmodulin), but not with the inhibitors found to block bone cell proliferation encountered with capacitive coupling (verapamil, bromophenacyl bromide, or indomethacin). [24] For bone cell proliferation due to inductive coupling, signal transduction must be mediated by release of intracellular calcium leading to increases in cytosolic calcium and activated calmodulin [Figure 5].

Similar to capacitive coupling, studies have shown increases in growth factors with the use of inductive coupling. BMP-2 and BMP-4 mRNA expression were found to be significantly increased in chick osteoblasts after undergoing inductive coupling. [30] Another study cultured nonunion cells from fracture nonunion patients and found a significant increase in TGF-β (Transforming Growth Factor Beta) production in cells stimulated with inductive coupling versus control cells. [31] This may represent an alternative method whereby inductive coupling may influence proliferation and differentiation of osteoblastic cells.

A meta-analysis by Mollon et al. examined four randomized controlled trials evaluating the clinical use of inductive coupling electrical stimulation to treat delayed union and nonunion of fractures. [7] Their meta-analysis revealed high heterogeneity (I 2 = 60.4%) that could not be explained by the bone investigated (tibia versus other bone) or the lesion treated (delayed union versus nonunion). They suggested that this heterogeneity may be due to the varied treatment devices and treatment times used in the different studies. The authors concluded that current evidence from randomized clinical trials is insufficient to suggest a clinical benefit for the use of this therapy for fresh fractures, osteotomies, delayed unions, and nonunions (level I evidence).


   Summary Top


There is extensive basic science research published on the effects of electrical stimulation for fracture healing. These studies have examined the effects of direct electrical stimulation, capacitive coupling and inductive coupling on bone cells in vitro . Through this research, we are now beginning to understand the mechanism of action of these modalities at the cellular level. Further research is required to better elucidate the chemical pathways within the bone cell that respond to electrical stimulation and result in proliferation and differentiation into osteoblastic cells. This may allow us to improve the effectiveness of electrical stimulation for enhancement of fracture healing and treatment of fracture nonunion in humans.

 
   References Top

1.Boyer A. A treatise on surgical diseases: and the operations suited to them. In: Stevens AH, editor and translator. Translation of: Traites des maladies chirurgicales. New York: T and J Swords; p. 1815-6.  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Wolff J. Das Gesetz der Transformation der Knochen A. Hirschwald: Berlin, 1892. Manquet P, Furlong R, editor. The Law of Bone Remodelling.Berlin: Springer; 1986.  Back to cited text no. 2    
3.Fukada E, Yasuda I. On the piezoelectric effect of bone. J Physiol Soc Jpn 1957;12:1158-62.  Back to cited text no. 3    
4.Duarte LR. The stimulation of bone growth by ultrasound. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1983;101:153-9.  Back to cited text no. 4  [PUBMED]  
5.Goodship AE, Kennwright J. The influence of induced micromovement upon the healing of experimental tibial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1985;67:650-5.  Back to cited text no. 5    
6.Valchanou VD, Michailov P. High energy shock waves in the treatment of delayed and non union of fractures. Int Orthop 1991;15:181-4.  Back to cited text no. 6  [PUBMED]  
7.Mollon B, da Silva V, Busse JW, Einhorn TA, Bhandari M. Electrical stimulation for long-bone fracture-healing: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90:2322-30.  Back to cited text no. 7  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
8.Becker RO, Bassett CAL, Bachman CH. Bioelectric factors controlling bone structure. In: Frost H, editor. Bone Biodynamics. Boston, Little, Brown; 1964. p. 209-32.  Back to cited text no. 8    
9.Yasuda I. Fundamental aspects of fracture treatment. J Kyoto Med SOC 1953;4:392.  Back to cited text no. 9    
10.Otter M, Goheen S, Williams WS. Streaming potentials in chemically modified bone. J Orthop Res 1988;6:346-59.  Back to cited text no. 10  [PUBMED]  
11.Rubinacci A, Black J, Brighton CT, Friedenberg ZB. Changes in bioelectric potentials on bone associated with direct current stimulation of osteogenesis. J Orthop Res 1988;6:335-45.  Back to cited text no. 11  [PUBMED]  
12.Black J. Electrical Stimulation: Its Role in Growth, Repair, and Remodeling of the Musculoskeletal System. New York: Praeger; 1987.  Back to cited text no. 12    
13.Brighton CT, Black J, Friedenberg Z, Esterhai JL, Day LJ, Connolly JF. A multicenter study of the treatment of non-union with constant direct current. J Bone Joint Surg 1981;63:2-13.  Back to cited text no. 13    
14.Gan JC, Glazer PA. Electrical stimulation therapies for spinal fusions: current concepts. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:1301-11.  Back to cited text no. 14    
15.Saxena A, DiDomenico LA, Widtfeldt A, Adams T, Kim W. Implantable electrical bone stimulation for arthrodeses of the foot and ankle in high-risk patients: a multicenter study. J Foot Ankle Surg 2005;44:450-4.  Back to cited text no. 15  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
16.Petrisor B, Lau JT. Electrical bone stimulation: an overview and its use in high risk and Charcot foot and ankle reconstructions. Foot Ankle Clin 2005;10:609-20.  Back to cited text no. 16  [PUBMED]  
17.Bodamyali T, Kanczler JM, Simon B, Blake DR, Stevens CR. Effect of faradic products on direct current stimulated calvarial organ culture calcium levels. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1999;264:657-61.  Back to cited text no. 17  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
18.Bushinsky DA. Metabolic alkalosis decreases bone calcium efflux by suppressing osteoclasts and stimulating osteoblasts. Am J Physiol 1996;271:F216-22.  Back to cited text no. 18  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
19.Cho M, Hunt TK, Hussain MZ. Hydrogen peroxide stimulates macrophage vascular endothelial growth factor release. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2001;280:H2357-63.  Back to cited text no. 19  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
20.Keramaris NC, Calori GM, Nikolaou VS, Schemitsch EH, Giannoudis PV. Fracture vascularity and bone healing: a systematic review of the role of VEGF. Injury 2008;39:S45-57.  Back to cited text no. 20  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
21.Aaron R, Ciombor D, Simon B. Treatment of nonunions with electric and electromagnetic fields. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;419:21-9.  Back to cited text no. 21    
22.Brighton CT, Okereke E, Pollack SR, Clark CC. In vitro bone-cell response to a capacitively coupled electrical field. The role of field strength, pulse pattern, and duty cycle. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992;285:255-62.  Back to cited text no. 22    
23.Korenstein R, Somjen D, Fischler H, Binderman I. Capacitative pulsed electric stimulation of bone cells. Induction of cyclic-AMP changes and DNA synthesis. Biochim Biophys Acta 1984;803: 302-7.  Back to cited text no. 23    
24.Wang Z, Clark CC, Brighton CT. Up-regulation of bone morphogenetic proteins in cultured murine bone cells with use of specific electric fields. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:1053-65.  Back to cited text no. 24  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
25.Aaron RK, Boyan BD, Ciombor DM, Schwartz Z, Simon BJ. Stimulation of growth factor synthesis by electric and electromagnetic fields. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;419:30-7.  Back to cited text no. 25  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
26.Lorich DG, Brighton CT, Gupta R, Corsetti JR, Levine SE, Gelb ID, et al. Biochemical pathway mediating the response of bone cells to capacitive coupling. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998;350:246-56.  Back to cited text no. 26  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
27.Brighton CT, Wang W, Seldes R, Zhang G, Pollack SR. Signal transduction in electrically stimulated bone cells. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83:1514-23.  Back to cited text no. 27  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
28.Aaron RK, Steinberg M. Electrical stimulation of osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Semin Arthroplasty 1991;2:214-21.  Back to cited text no. 28    
29.Nelson FR, Brighton CT, Ryaby J, Simon BJ, Nielson JH, Lorich DG, et al. Use of physical forces in bone healing. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2003;11:344-54.  Back to cited text no. 29  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
30.Nagai M, Ota M. Pulsating electromagnetic field stimulates mRNA expression of bone morphogenetic protein-2 and -4. J Dent Res 1994;73:1601-5.  Back to cited text no. 30  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
31.Guerkov HH, Lohmann CH, Liu Y, Dean DD, Simon BJ, Heckman JD, Schwartz Z, Boyan BD. Pulsed electromagnetic fields increase growth factor release by nonunion cells. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001;384:265-79.  Back to cited text no. 31  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]

Top
Correspondence Address:
Emil H Schemitsch
800 - 55 Queen St. East, Toronto, Ontario, M5C 1R6.
Canada
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.50846

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]

This article has been cited by
1 Electrically active and 3D porous TiO2-x ceramic scaffolds for bone tissue regeneration
Inga Narkevica,Liga Stipniece,Eriks Jakobsons,Inese Cakstina,Jurijs Ozolins
Journal of the European Ceramic Society. 2017; 37(2): 833
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Remote Control of Cellular Functions: The Role of Smart Nanomaterials in the Medicine of the Future
Giada Graziana Genchi,Attilio Marino,Agostina Grillone,Ilaria Pezzini,Gianni Ciofani
Advanced Healthcare Materials. 2017; 6(9): 1700002
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Regulates MicroRNA 21 Expression to Activate TGF-ß Signaling in Human Bone Marrow Stromal Cells to Enhance Osteoblast Differentiation
Nagarajan Selvamurugan,Zhiming He,Daniel Rifkin,Branka Dabovic,Nicola C. Partridge
Stem Cells International. 2017; 2017: 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Differential effects of high and low strength magnetic fields on mouse embryonic development and vasculogenesis of embryonic stem cells
Mohamed M. Bekhite,Andreas Finkensieper,Fouad A. Abou-Zaid,Ibrahim K. El-Shourbagy,Nabil K. EL-Fiky,Khaled M. Omar,Heinrich Sauer,Maria Wartenberg
Reproductive Toxicology. 2016; 65: 46
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 A mathematical framework for predicting thermal damage during bone electrostimulation
Professor Carlos F.R. Lemos Antunes,Juan C. Vanegas-Acosta,V. Lancellotti,A.P.M. Zwamborn
COMPEL - The international journal for computation and mathematics in electrical and electronic engineering. 2015; 34(4): 1085
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Interplay of Substrate Conductivity, Cellular Microenvironment, and Pulsatile Electrical Stimulation toward Osteogenesis of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Vitro
Greeshma Thrivikraman,Poh S. Lee,Ricarda Hess,Vanessa Haenchen,Bikramjit Basu,Dieter Scharnweber
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. 2015; 7(41): 23015
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Clinical Aspects of Fracture Healing: An Overview
James X. Liu,John A. Buza,Philipp Leucht
Clinical Reviews in Bone and Mineral Metabolism. 2015; 13(4): 208
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 Management for common lower leg stress fractures in athletes
Elise M. Graham,Joshua Burns,Claire E. Hiller,Elizabeth J. Nightingale,Milena Simic
Physical Therapy Reviews. 2015; 20(1): 29
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 Evaluation of electric field distribution in electromagnetic stimulation of human femoral head
Yukun Su,Robert Souffrant,Daniel Kluess,Martin Ellenrieder,Wolfram Mittelmeier,Ursula van Rienen,Rainer Bader
Bioelectromagnetics. 2014; : n/a
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 Contributions and future perspectives on the use of magnetic nanoparticles as diagnostic and therapeutic tools in the field of regenerative medicine
Vítor E Santo,Márcia T Rodrigues,Manuela E Gomes
Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics. 2013; 13(6): 553
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
11 Electrical methods of controlling bacterial adhesion and biofilm on device surfaces
David Freebairn,David Linton,Eileen Harkin-Jones,David S Jones,Brendan F Gilmore,Sean P Gorman
Expert Review of Medical Devices. 2013; 10(1): 85
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
12 Electrical methods of controlling bacterial adhesion and biofilm on device surfaces
Freebairn, D. and Linton, D. and Harkin-Jones, E. and Jones, D.S. and Gilmore, B.F. and Gorman, S.P.
Expert Review of Medical Devices. 2013; 10(1): 85-103
[Pubmed]
13 Mathematical model of electrotaxis in osteoblastic cells
Vanegas-Acosta, J.C. and GarzĂłn-Alvarado, D.A. and Zwamborn, A.P.M.
Bioelectrochemistry. 2012; 88: 134-143
[Pubmed]
14 Monitoring of fracture healing by electrical conduction: A new diagnostic procedure
Kumaravel, S. and Sundaram, S.
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics. 2012; 46(4): 384-390
[Pubmed]
15 Pulsed electromagnetic fields for the treatment of tibial delayed unions and nonunions. A prospective clinical study and review of the literature
Assiotis, A. and Sachinis, N.P. and Chalidis, B.E.
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2012; 7(1)
[Pubmed]
16 Pulsed electromagnetic fields for the treatment of tibial delayed unions and nonunions. A prospective clinical study and review of the literature
Aggelos Assiotis,Nick P Sachinis,Byron E Chalidis
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2012; 7(1): 24
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
17 The use of electric stimulation as a diagnostic tool to assess fracture healing and new bone formation
Kumaravel, S., Sundaram, S.
Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology. 2011; 33(2): 205-213
[Pubmed]
18 Stimulation of Bone Formation and Fracture Healing with Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields: Biologic Responses and Clinical Implications
B. Chalidis,N. Sachinis,A. Assiotis,G. Maccauro,Filippo Graziani
International Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology. 2011; 24(1_suppl2): 17
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
   
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


 
    Abstract
    Introduction
    Basic Science of...
    Direct Electrica...
    Capacitive Coupling
    Inductive Coupling
    Summary
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed6131    
    Printed222    
    Emailed5    
    PDF Downloaded439    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 18    

Recommend this journal