scholarly journals Electrical Stimulation to Enhance Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review

2014 ◽  
Vol 05 (02) ◽  
pp. 087-094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darryl Lau ◽  
Erika Brodt ◽  
Joseph Dettori ◽  
Paul Park
2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ethan Cottrill ◽  
Zach Pennington ◽  
A. Karim Ahmed ◽  
Daniel Lubelski ◽  
Matthew L. Goodwin ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVENonunion is a common complication of spinal fusion surgeries. Electrical stimulation technologies (ESTs)—namely, direct current stimulation (DCS), capacitive coupling stimulation (CCS), and inductive coupling stimulation (ICS)—have been suggested to improve fusion rates. However, the evidence to support their use is based solely on small trials. Here, the authors report the results of meta-analyses of the preclinical and clinical data from the literature to provide estimates of the overall effect of these therapies at large and in subgroups.METHODSA systematic review of the English-language literature was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The query of these databases was designed to include all preclinical and clinical studies examining ESTs for spinal fusion. The primary endpoint was the fusion rate at the last follow-up. Meta-analyses were performed using a Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation followed by random-effects modeling.RESULTSA total of 33 articles (17 preclinical, 16 clinical) were identified, of which 11 preclinical studies (257 animals) and 13 clinical studies (2144 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Among preclinical studies, the mean fusion rates were higher among EST-treated animals (OR 4.79, p < 0.001). Clinical studies similarly showed ESTs to increase fusion rates (OR 2.26, p < 0.001). Of EST modalities, only DCS improved fusion rates in both preclinical (OR 5.64, p < 0.001) and clinical (OR 2.13, p = 0.03) populations; ICS improved fusion in clinical studies only (OR 2.45, p = 0.014). CCS was not effective at increasing fusion, although only one clinical study was identified. A subanalysis of the clinical studies found that ESTs increased fusion rates in the following populations: patients with difficult-to-fuse spines, those who smoke, and those who underwent multilevel fusions.CONCLUSIONSThe authors found that electrical stimulation devices may produce clinically significant increases in arthrodesis rates among patients undergoing spinal fusion. They also found that the pro-arthrodesis effects seen in preclinical studies are also found in clinical populations, suggesting that findings in animal studies are translatable. Additional research is needed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of these devices.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shakib Akhter ◽  
Abdul Rehman Qureshi ◽  
Idris Aleem ◽  
Hussein Ali El-Khechen ◽  
Shadman Khan ◽  
...  

Toxins ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 303
Author(s):  
Alessandro Picelli ◽  
Mirko Filippetti ◽  
Giorgio Sandrini ◽  
Cristina Tassorelli ◽  
Roberto De Icco ◽  
...  

Botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) represents a first-line treatment for spasticity, a common disabling consequence of many neurological diseases. Electrical stimulation of motor nerve endings has been reported to boost the effect of BoNT-A. To date, a wide range of stimulation protocols has been proposed in the literature. We conducted a systematic review of current literature on the protocols of electrical stimulation to boost the effect of BoNT-A injection in patients with spasticity. A systematic search using the MeSH terms “electric stimulation”, “muscle spasticity” and “botulinum toxins” and strings “electric stimulation [mh] OR electrical stimulation AND muscle spasticity [mh] OR spasticity AND botulinum toxins [mh] OR botulinum toxin type A” was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, PEDro and Cochrane library electronic databases. Full-text articles written in English and published from database inception to March 2021 were included. Data on patient characteristics, electrical stimulation protocols and outcome measures were collected. This systematic review provides a complete overview of current literature on the role of electrical stimulation to boost the effect of BoNT-A injection for spasticity, together with a critical discussion on its rationale based on the neurobiology of BoNT-A uptake.


2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 1429-1436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ubirajara Barroso ◽  
Rafael Tourinho ◽  
Patrícia Lordêlo ◽  
Piet Hoebeke ◽  
Janet Chase

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 879
Author(s):  
Aida Agost-González ◽  
Isabel Escobio-Prieto ◽  
Azahara M. Pareja-Leal ◽  
María Jesús Casuso-Holgado ◽  
María Blanco-Diaz ◽  
...  

Background: Percutaneous electrical stimulation and transcutaneous electrical stimulation (PTNS and TTNS) of the posterior tibial nerve are internationally recognized treatment methods that offer advantages in terms of treating patients with overactive bladder (OAB) who present with urinary incontinence (UI). This article aims to analyze the scientific evidence for the treatment of OAB with UI in adults using PTNS versus TTNS procedures in the posterior tibial nerve. Methods: A systematic review was conducted, between February and May 2021 in the Web of Science and Scopus databases, in accordance with the PRISMA recommendations. Results: The research identified 259 studies, 130 of which were selected and analyzed, with only 19 used according to the inclusion requirements established. The greatest effectiveness, in reducing UI and in other parameters of daily voiding and quality of life, was obtained by combining both techniques with other treatments, pharmacological treatments, or exercise. Conclusions: TTNS has advantages over PTNS as it is more comfortable for the patient even though there is equality of both therapies in the outcome variables. More research studies are necessary in order to obtain clear scientific evidence.


2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 509-516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zorica Buser ◽  
Darrel S. Brodke ◽  
Jim A. Youssef ◽  
Hans-Joerg Meisel ◽  
Sue Lynn Myhre ◽  
...  

The purpose of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of synthetic bone graft substitutes versus autograft or allograft for the treatment of lumbar and cervical spinal degenerative diseases. Multiple major medical reference databases were searched for studies that evaluated spinal fusion using synthetic bone graft substitutes (either alone or with an autograft or allograft) compared with autograft and allograft. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies with more than 10 patients were included. Radiographic fusion, patient-reported outcomes, and functional outcomes were the primary outcomes of interest. The search yielded 214 citations with 27 studies that met the inclusion criteria. For the patients with lumbar spinal degenerative disease, data from 19 comparative studies were included: 3 RCTs, 12 prospective, and 4 retrospective studies. Hydroxyapatite (HA), HA+collagen, β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), calcium sulfate, or polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) were used. Overall, there were no differences between the treatment groups in terms of fusion, functional outcomes, or complications, except in 1 study that found higher rates of HA graft absorption. For the patients with cervical degenerative conditions, data from 8 comparative studies were included: 4 RCTs and 4 cohort studies (1 prospective and 3 retrospective studies). Synthetic grafts included HA, β-TCP/HA, PMMA, and biocompatible osteoconductive polymer (BOP). The PMMA and BOP grafts led to lower fusion rates, and PMMA, HA, and BOP had greater risks of graft fragmentation, settling, and instrumentation problems compared with iliac crest bone graft. The overall quality of evidence evaluating the potential use and superiority of the synthetic biological materials for lumbar and cervical fusion in this systematic review was low or insufficient, largely due to the high potential for bias and small sample sizes. Thus, definitive conclusions or recommendations regarding the use of these synthetic materials should be made cautiously and within the context of the limitations of the evidence.


2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Zeng ◽  
H. li ◽  
T. Yang ◽  
Z.-h. Deng ◽  
Y. Yang ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document