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

Users Online: 592 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
 


 
SYMPOSIUM Table of Contents   
Year : 2009  |  Volume : 43  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 156-160
Pulsed electromagnetic stimulation in nonunion of tibial diaphyseal fractures


1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, GSVM Medical College, Kanpur, India
2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, SN Medical College, Agra, India

Click here for correspondence address and email
 

   Abstract 

Background: Nonunion of long bones is a difficult clinical problem and challenges the clinical acumen of surgeons. Multiple surgical or nonsurgical modalities have been used to treat nonunions. Noninvasive pulsed electromagnetic stimulation is an entity known to affect the piezoelectric phenomenon of bone forming cells. We conducted a study on 45 long-bone fractures of tibia treated by pulsed electromagnetic stimulation, which are analyzed and reported.
Materials and Methods: A total of 45 tibial fractures with established atrophic nonunion were enrolled between 1981 and 1988. All the patients had abnormal mobility and no or minimal gap at fracture site with no evidence of callus formation across the fracture site. The patients' age ranged between 24 and 68 years; 40 were men and 5 were women. All patients having evidence of infection, implant in situ , and gap nonunions were excluded from study. Pulsed electromagnetic stimulation was given using above-knee plaster of Paris cast (0.008 Weber/m 2 magnetic field was created for 12 h/day). The average duration for pulsed electromagnetic stimulation (PEMS) therapy was 8.35 weeks, with the range being 6-12 weeks. The cases were evaluated at 6 weeks and subsequently every 6-weekly interval for clinical and radiological union. The withdrawal of therapy was decided as per clinicoradiological evidence of union.
Results:
All but three patients showed evidence of union. About 35% (n = 16) cases showed union in 10 weeks, and 85% (n = 38) cases showed union in 4 months. The average duration of therapy using PEMS was 8.35±0.48 weeks, and the average duration of immobilization was 3.02 ± 0.22 months. Three cases that did not show evidence of union were poorly compliant for the apparatus of PEMS.
Conclusion: PEMS is a useful noninvasive modality of treatment for difficult nonunion of long bones.

Keywords: Nonunion, pulsed electromagnetic stimulation, tibial diaphyseal fractures

How to cite this article:
Gupta AK, Srivastava KP, Avasthi S. Pulsed electromagnetic stimulation in nonunion of tibial diaphyseal fractures. Indian J Orthop 2009;43:156-60

How to cite this URL:
Gupta AK, Srivastava KP, Avasthi S. Pulsed electromagnetic stimulation in nonunion of tibial diaphyseal fractures. Indian J Orthop [serial online] 2009 [cited 2020 Feb 22];43:156-60. Available from: http://www.ijoonline.com/text.asp?2009/43/2/156/50850

   Introduction Top


Nonunion of long bones is a challenge for orthopedic surgeons. [1],[2],[3] A diagnosis of nonunion is unjustified until there is evidence, either clinical or radiological, that healing has ceased and that union is highly improbable. The exact causes of nonunion are unknown, but various factors contribute to this unwanted complication. [4] Many surgical and nonsurgical modalities have been proposed to reduce the chances of nonunion or to treat the established nonunion. Discovery of electrical phenomenon in skeletal system and its cellular environment has led to the establishment of techniques of electrical stimulation in the promotion of bone healing. [1],[2],[3] This was followed by a series of studies to establish the role of electrical stimulation in fracture healing [5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11] Noninvasive methodology to generate electrical field around the bone defect has gained popularity, as a number of problems were envisioned in invasive method, which includes the insertion of multiple electrodes and iatrogenic infection. Change of electrical environment around fibroblast has led to the application of the noninvasive method for changing the electrical environment around the cell. [12] This led to a series of experiments to establish the method as a modality for therapeutic use. [13],[14],[15],[16] The therapeutic potential of this method was proved by conducting animal studies. [17],[18] Also, clinical trials were conducted to establish the outcome of the modality. [11],[19],[20] Considering the above facts, we hypothesized that pulsed electromagnetic stimulation (PEMS) is a safe and effective modality for conservatively treating nonunion of long bones with the null hypothesis being that it does not have any effect. We conducted a study of 45 tibial nonunion cases treated by PEMS, and the results were analyzed to determine its efficacy.


   Materials and Methods Top


This study was started in 1981 and continued till 1988 simultaneously at two large tertiary-level teaching hospitals. A total of 45 cases of nonunion tibia were enrolled and subsequently treated by electrical stimulation. Established nonunion of tibia (defined as >9 months duration since injury with no evidence of radiological progression of union in the past 3 months) were included in the study. Criteria for inclusion were no or minimal gap at fracture site and insufficient callus formation. However, we excluded the cases having evidence of osteomyelitis or where implant was placed in situ due to primary management. The nonunion was mobile in all the cases, with the absence of bridging callus across the fracture site as seen on radiography.

All the patients selected were subjected to routine clinical and laboratory examination. The possible causes of poor healing were established by excluding any systemic defects such as diabetes mellitus, malnutrition, alcoholism, and tobacco smoking. The cases of nonunion having satisfactory axial and rotatory alignment of fracture were immobilized using a well fitting long leg plaster. Cases not showing satisfactory axial or rotatory alignment were excluded. The acceptable reduction was defined as >50% contact across bone ends in AP and lateral views. No rotation or angulation was accepted. The fracture site was marked over the skin of the opposite limb before applying plaster. The diameter of cast was measured to determine the distance between two coils. A pair of oval-shaped coils was put across the fracture site centering over the fracture at 180° to each other [Figure 1]. Radiological confirmation of position of coil was done. The pair of coils was then connected to the main equipment box, which operated at 220 V AC. It consisted of a step down transformer, pulse generator, and a power amplifier [Figure 1]. The transformer converted the 220 V AC current to 30 V DC current and pulse generator converts it into pulsing current. It delivers 0.3-ms quasirectengular pulse with a repetition rate of 75 Hz. Amplifier amplifies it and delivers to the pair of coils. The specific intercoil distance with parallel coil creates a Helmholtz aiding effect, i.e., production of uniform pulsing electromagnetic field at all points within the area of bone to be treated. [21]

Overall a 0.008 Weber/m 2 magnetic field was created across the fracture site, and PEMS was given for 12 h/day at a stretch [Figure 2]. Absolute non-weight-bearing was maintained for 10-12 weeks. Patients were immobilized in patellar tendon bearing Plaster of Paris cast with walking iron at 3 months, and the cast support was removed only after complete union. Clinicoradiological assessment of fracture healing was done at 6-weekly intervals. Patients were analyzed for the absence of tenderness and presence of transmitted movements. Radiologically, in stage I healing, calcified callus was considered to be the sign of union, which was evident by fuzziness in fracture gap with patchy sclerosis. Stage II healing was indicated by the appearance of consolidated bone stress lines bridging the fracture gap. Stage III healing was indicated by medullarization of fracture gap. Remodeling was considered as stage IV healing [Figure 3a],[Figure 3b],[Figure 3c],[Figure 3d]. The results were evaluated at 6 weeks and 6-weekly intervals thereafter. Patients were followed up till 9 months, and absence of complete union as described above was taken as a failure. If, during the first 12 weeks of treatment, stage I healing was not achieved radiologically, then this modality of treatment was considered as failure, and treatment was abandoned.


   Results Top


Forty-five cases of nonunion tibia were enrolled and underwent treatment. The youngest patient was of 24 years and oldest was of 68 years, with average age being 42.8 years. 90% (n = 40) of cases were males and the rest were females (n = 5). In our series, 28 cases had fracture in the middle third of tibia, and 17 cases had fracture in the lower third of tibia. Out of them, 20% (n = 9) cases were initially compound (grades I and II), and the rest were simple cases of fracture of leg bones. Improper immobilization and reduction were the main factors leading to nonunion in 85% of cases (n = 38). Excessive comminution (more than 4 bony fragments apart from two major fragments) was noted in 20% (n = 9) of cases. Nine cases had systemic factors predisposing for nonunion such as diabetes mellitus, malnutrition, alcoholism, and tobacco smoking. About 70% (n = 31) cases suffered trauma as a result of road traffic accident, and the rest were due to domestic trauma.

The average duration since trauma until we started electrical stimulation was of 9.08 ± 0.22 months (9-11 months). About 31% (n = 14) of the cases showed only abnormal mobility as presenting feature, and 69% (n = 31) showed abnormal mobility and pain on bending stress. PEMS was applied in all the cases as detailed above. The average duration of therapy using PEMS was 8.35 ± 0.48 weeks.

First radiological evidence of the start of union appeared at 6 weeks in all the cases except one case, in which it appeared around 12 weeks. Complete union was achieved in 16 (35%) cases within 10 weeks and in 38 (85%) cases by 4 months. Average duration of immobilization was 3.02 ± 0.22 months, and time of union was 10-42 weeks. Out of the rest 7 (15 %) cases, union was achieved in 4 cases in 6 months, but their electrical stimulation was stopped after 3 months. There was evidence of callus formation, but it was not fully calcified. Three cases did not show evidence of union. Complications noted include increase in joint stiffness in all the patients compared with pretreatment status and persistent nonunion in three cases. Poor compliance to the electromagnetic device was thought to be the most common reason for failure of therapy.


   Discussion Top


Nonunion that has not progressed to pseudoarthrosis can be effectively treated by the generation of electromagnetic field around fracture ends. This statement is based on the established facts regarding the modification of cellular behavior in and around the bone using noninvasive electromagnetic stimulation. [6],[21] The evidence of osteoblast stimulation was given in 1965 when it was proved that bone components have electromagnetic environment, which if modulated can lead to improved osteogenesis. [22] By the production of time-varying magnetic field, it is possible to induce current in tissues that is put within it. PEMS promotes organization and consolidation in delayed union. Osteoblast realignment and stimulation for callus formation are the probable answers. Diniz et al . studied the role of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulatory effect on bone tissue formation. Their question was whether it was associated with the increase in the number of cells and/or with the enhancement of the cellular differentiation. The cellular proliferation (DNA content), differentiation (alkaline phosphatase activity), and bone tissue-like formation (area of mineralized matrix) were determined at different time points. PEMF treatment of osteoblasts in the active proliferation stage accelerated cellular proliferation, enhanced cellular differentiation, and increased bone tissue-like formation. PEMF treatment of osteoblasts in the differentiation stage enhanced cellular differentiation and increased bone tissue-like formation. [23] Preclinical studies have demonstrated that PEMS has role in stimulating protein synthesis, which have effect in gene regulation. [23] Upregulation of mRNA levels and protein synthesis for growth factors has also been observed with the application of PEMS. [24] This enhances cellular repair and synthesis of extracellular proteins, which have role in differentiation and growth. Amplification of role of PEMS is probably due to transmembrane receptors such as IL-2, IGF-2, calcitonin, PTHs, etc. [25]

Considering the above fact, a number of series have been developed and people have proved the evidence of bone union by PEMS. Dehauss et al . (1980), [26] Bassett et al . (1981), [21] Sharrad et al . (1982), [27] Satter et al . (1999), [28] Abeed et al . (1998), [29] and Zamora Navas et al . (1995) [30] have given their series and the comparison of present series has been done [Table 1].

Comparison of above data shows that PEMS gives excellent outcome in all parts of world. Recent series of Simons et al .(2003) [31] and Punt et al .(2008) [32] has also shown that it is an effective way of treatment of nonunion tibia. However, daily duration of therapy varies in different studies. We found 12 hrs / day schedule to be effective and compliant for patients as well. In our series, >90% success was achieved which is at par with other series in the world. We found that infection has no detrimental effect on fracture healing but gap between fracture ends and distance between coils are important factors. In our protocol the distance between coils has worked by producing coil effects across fracture ends. They have worked by generation of electromagnetic field leading to stimulation of osteosynthesis. The idea that PEMS can be used as stimulant of bone healing in fresh fractures cannot be denied considering the physiological basis and generation of evidence of promoting bone healing in nonunion cases. Their role in fresh fractures needs to be studied further.In our opinion the best nonunion to be treated by this method is one without any other complication such as infection, etc. Compound fractures in need of dressing with gap or loss of bony fragment will be difficult to be managed by this modality.


   Conclusion Top


PEMS is a safe and effective modality of treatment in cases of nonunion. Judicious application and vigilant follow-up leads to excellent bone union across bone ends.

 
   References Top

1.Bassett CA. The Development of Long Term Mass Tissue Cultures of a Strain of Normal Tendon Cells. Thesis. New York, N.Y: Columbia University; 1955.  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Bassett CA. Environmental and Cellular Factors Regulating Osteogenesis. In: Frost HM, editor. Bone Biodynamics. p. 233-244. Boston: Little Brown; 1964.  Back to cited text no. 2    
3.Bassett CA. Pulsing Electromagnetic Fields: A New Approach to Surgical Problems. In: Buchwald H, Varco RL, editors. Metabolic Surgery. New York: Grune and Stratton; 1978. p. 255-306.  Back to cited text no. 3    
4.Boyd HB, Lipinski SW, Willey JH. Observations on nonunions of the shafts of long bones with a stastical analysis of 842 patients. J Bone Joint Surg 1961;43A:159  Back to cited text no. 4    
5.Friedenberg ZB, Brighton CT. Bioelectric Potentials in Bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1966;48:915-23.  Back to cited text no. 5  [PUBMED]  
6.Friedenberg ZB, Brighton CT. The effect of direct current on bone. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1968;127:97-102.  Back to cited text no. 6    
7.Friedenberg ZB, Harlow MC, Brighton CT. Healing of Nonunion of the Medial Malleolus by Means of Direct Current. A Case Report. J Trauma 1971;11:883-4.   Back to cited text no. 7    
8.Friedenberg ZB, Roberts PG Jr, Didizian NH, Brighton CT. Stimulation of Fracture Healing by Direct Current in the Rabbit Fibula. J Bone and Joint Surg 1971;53:1400-8.   Back to cited text no. 8    
9.Friedenberg ZB, Zemsky LM, Pollis RP, Brighton CT. The Response of Non-Traumatized Bone to Direct Current. J. Bone and Joint Surg., 1974;56-A:1023-30.   Back to cited text no. 9    
10.Friedenberg ZB, Andrews ET, Smolenski BI, Pearl BW, Brighton CT. Bone Reaction to Varying Amounts of Direct Current. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1970;131:894-9.  Back to cited text no. 10  [PUBMED]  
11.Bassett CA, Mitchell SN, Norton L, Caulo N, Gaston SR. Electromagnetic Repairs of Nonunions. Electrical Properties of Bone and Cartilage; Experimental Effects and Clinical Applications. 1979. p. 605-30.   Back to cited text no. 11    
12.Bassett CA, Hermann, Ingeborg. The Effect of electrostatic fields on macromolecular synthesis of fibroblasts in vitro [abstract] J Cell Biol 1968;39:9a.  Back to cited text no. 12    
13.Bassett CA, Pawluk RJ. Noninvasive Methods for Stimulating Osteogenesis. J J Biomed Mater Res 1975;9:371-4.  Back to cited text no. 13    
14.Norton LA. In vivo bone growth in a controlled electric field. Ann New York Acad Sci 1974;238:466-77.  Back to cited text no. 14    
15.Dennis P, Lewis GN, Cass CA. Clinical Experience in Australia with an Implanted Bone Growth Stimulator (1976-1978). Orthop Trans 1979;3:288-9.  Back to cited text no. 15    
16.Spadaro JA. Electrically Stimulated Bone Growth in Animals and Man. Review of the Literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1977;122:325-32.  Back to cited text no. 16    
17.Bassett CA, Pawluk RJ, Pilla AA. Acceleration of Fracture Repair by Electromagnetic Fields. A Surgically Noninvasive Method. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1974;238:242-62.  Back to cited text no. 17    
18.Bassett CA, Pawluk RJ, Pilla AA. Augmentation of Bone Repair by Inductively Coupled Electromagnetic Fields. Science 1974;184:575-7.  Back to cited text no. 18  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
19.Bassett CA, Pilla AA, Pawluk RJ. A non-operative salvage of surgically-resistant pseudarthroses and non-unions by pulsing electromagnetic fields. A preliminary report. Clin Orthop 1977;124:128-43.   Back to cited text no. 19    
20.Bassett CA, Mitchell SN, Norton L, Pilla A. Repair of Non-Unions by Pulsing Electromagnetic Fields. Acta Orthop Belg 1978;44:706-24.   Back to cited text no. 20  [PUBMED]  
21.Bassett CAL, Mitchell SN, Gaston SR. Treatment of ununited tibial diaphyseal fractures with pulsing electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1981;63:511-23.  Back to cited text no. 21    
22.Bassett CA. Electrical Effects in Bone. Scient Am 1965;213:18-25.   Back to cited text no. 22    
23.Diniz P, Shomura K, Soejima K Ito G. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation on bone tissue like formation are dependent on the maturation stages of the osteoblasts. Bioelectromagnetics none2002;23:398-405.  Back to cited text no. 23    
24.Hannouchhe D, Petite H, Sedel L). Current trends in the enhancement of fracture healing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001;83:157-64.  Back to cited text no. 24    
25.Ciombor DM, Aaron RK. The role of electrical stimulation in bone repair. Foot Ankle Clin 2005;10:579-93.  Back to cited text no. 25  [PUBMED]  
26.Dehauss WG, Watson J, Morrison DM. Noninvasive treatment of ununited fractures of tibia using electrical stimulation. JBJS 1988;62B:466-70.  Back to cited text no. 26    
27.Sharrad WJ, Sutcliff ML, Robson MJ, Maceachem AG. Treatment of fibrous nonunion of fractures by pulsing electromagnetic stimulation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1982;64:189-93.  Back to cited text no. 27    
28.Satter Syed A, Islam MS, Rabbani KS, Talukder MS. Pulsed electromagnetic fields for the treatment of bone fractures. Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull 1999;25:6-10.   Back to cited text no. 28  [PUBMED]  
29.Abeed RI, Naseer M, Abel EW. Capacitively coupled electrical stimulation treatment: results from patients with failed long bone fracture unions. J Orthop Trauma 1998;12:510-3.   Back to cited text no. 29  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
30.Zamora-Navas P, Borras Verdera A, Antelo Lorenzo R, Saras Ayuso JR, Peρa Reina MC. Electrical stimulation of bone nonunion with the presence of a gap. Acta Orthop Belg 1995;61:169-76.   Back to cited text no. 30    
31.Simonis RB, Parnell EJ, Ray PS, Peacock JL. Electrical treatment of tibial nonunion: a prospective randomized double blind trial. Injury 2003;34:357-62.  Back to cited text no. 31  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
32.Punt BJ, Den Hoed PT, Fontijne WP. Pulsed electromagnetic fields in the treatment of nonunion. European journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology 2008;18:127-33.  Back to cited text no. 32    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Anil Kumar Gupta
L-26, Medical College, Kanpur - 208 002
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.50850

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3a], [Figure 3b], [Figure 3c], [Figure 3d]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]

This article has been cited by
1 Effects of electromagnetic fields on osteoporosis: A systematic literature review
Rong Wang,Hua Wu,Yong Yang,Mingyu Song
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 2016; 35(4): 384
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 A new device for improving dental implants anchorage: a histological and micro-computed tomography study in the rabbit
Shlomo Barak,Moshe Neuman,Giovanna Iezzi,Adriano Piattelli,Vittoria Perrotti,Yankel Gabet
Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2016; 27(8): 935
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 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]
4 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]
5 Corticoperiosteal flap in the treatment of nonunions and small bone gaps: Technical details and expanding possibilities
Rodríguez-Vegas, J.M., Delgado-Serrano, P.J.
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery. 2011; 64(4): 517-527
[Pubmed]
6 Corticoperiosteal flap in the treatment of nonunions and small bone gaps: Technical details and expanding possibilities
J.M. Rodríguez-Vegas,P.J. Delgado-Serrano
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. 2011; 64(4): 515
[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
    Materials and Me...
    Results
    Discussion
    Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4130    
    Printed147    
    Emailed4    
    PDF Downloaded293    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 6    

Recommend this journal