medigraphic.com

2019, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Cir Cir 2019; 87 (1)

Combination of noise plus weight-bearing accelerates consolidation time in tibial shaft fractures: A preliminary report

Franco-de la Torre L, Villafán-Bernal JR, Garmendia-Castañón R, Franco-González AP, Isiordia-Espinoza MA, Alcalá-Zermeño JL, Gómez-Sánchez E, Rodríguez-Méndez LM, Sánchez-Enríquez S

Language: English
References: 21
Page: 18-22
PDF size: 252.02 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Long bones fractures are responsible for prolonged periods of incapacity and economic losses. New therapies for shortening the time of consolidation are needed. Thus, the purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the efficacy of noise plus weight-bearing over the bone consolidation of tibial shaft fractures. Methods: In this clinical trial, 12 patients with tibial shaft fractures were recruited during a 24-month period. Participants were treated with intramedullary nails and randomized to two groups: an experimental group and a control group. Both groups underwent a rehabilitation program consisting of two daily walking sessions with progressive weight-bearing. Simultaneously, the experimental group received a noise stimulus on the fracture site with intensities of 0.1-0.6 N and frequencies of 0.1-50 Hz. Radiographic consolidation was evaluated by Radiographic Unión Scale of Tibia. Results: X-ray consolidation was achieved at 18.6 ± 3.6 weeks and 27.2 ± 6.9 weeks, for experimental and control group, respectively (p ‹ 0.05). Recovery of mobility ranges in the knee and ankle was faster in the experimental group than in the control group. Conclusions: This new method to stimulate fracture consolidation has the following advantages: it is effective, portable, easy to use, and inexpensive.


REFERENCES

  1. Mathew G, Hanson BP. Global burden of trauma: need for effective fracture therapies. Indian J Orthop. 2009;43:111-6.

  2. Lin HY, Lu KH. Repairing large bone fractures with low frequency electromagnetic fields. J Orthop Res. 2010;28:265-70.

  3. 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.

  4. Gupta TD, Jain VK, Tandon PN. Comparative study of bone growth by pulsed electromagnetic fields. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1991;29:113-20.

  5. Tsai CL, Chang WH, Liu TK, Song GM. Ultrasound can affect bone healing both locally and systemically. Chin J Physiol. 1991;34:213-22.

  6. Rubin C, Bolander M, Ryaby JP, Hadjiargyrou M. The use of low-intensity ultrasound to accelerate the healing of fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A:259-70.

  7. Schortinghuis J, Stegenga B, Raghoebar GM, de Bont LG. Ultrasound stimulation of maxillofacial bone healing. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2003;14:63-74.

  8. Tanaka SM, Alam IM, Turner CH. Stochastic resonance in osteogenic response to mechanical loading. FASEB J. 2003;17:313-4.

  9. Whelan DB, Bhandari M, Stephen D, et al. Development of the radiographic union score for tibial fractures for the assessment of tibial fracture healing after intramedullary fixation. J Trauma. 2010;68:629-32.

  10. Alemdaroğlu KB, Tiftikçi U, Iltar S, et al. Factors affecting the fracture healing in treatment of tibial shaft fractures with circular external fixator. Injury. 2009;40:1151-6.

  11. Bonnevialle P, Belumore Y, Foucras L, Hezard L, Mansat M. Tibial fracture with intact fibula treated by reamed nailing. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2000;86:29-37.

  12. Larsen LB, Madsen JE, Høiness PR, Øvre S. Should insertion of intramedullary nails for tibial fractures is with or without reaming? A prospective, randomized study with 3.8 years’ follow-up. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18:144-9.

  13. Chalidis BE, Petsatodis GE, Sachinis NC, Dimitriou CG, Christodoulou AG. Reamed interlocking intramedullary nailing for the treatment of tibial diaphyseal fractures and aseptic nonunions. Can we expect an optimum result? Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2009;4:89-94.

  14. Kamruzzaman A, Islam S. Result of closed interlocking intramedullary nail in tibial shaft fracture. Bang Med J (Khulna). 2011;44:15-7.

  15. Augat P, Simon U, Liedert A, Claes L. Mechanics and mechano-biology of fracture healing in normal and osteoporotic bone. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16 Suppl 2:S36-43.

  16. Claes LE, Heigele CA, Neidlinger-Wilke C, et al. Effects of mechanical factors on the fracture healing process. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998; 355:S132-47.

  17. Smith-Adaline EA, Volkman SK, Ignelzi MA Jr., et al. Mechanical environment alters tissue formation patterns during fracture repair. J Orthop Res. 2004;22:1079-85.

  18. Heckman JD, Ryaby JP, McCabe J, Frey JJ, Kilcoyne RF. Acceleration of tibial fracture-healing by non-invasive, low-intensity pulsed ultrasound. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76:26-34.

  19. Mammi GI, Rocchi R, Cadossi R, Massari L, Traina GC. The electrical stimulation of tibial osteotomies. Double-blind study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;288:246-53.

  20. Emami A, Petrén-Mallmin M, Larsson S. No effect of low-intensity ultrasound on healing time of intramedullary fixed tibial fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 1999;13:252-7.

  21. Starr AJ, Borer DS, Reinert CM. Conflict of interest, bias, and objectivity in research articles. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A:1429-31.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com