scholarly journals Direct Current Electrical Stimulation Increases the Fusion Rate of Spinal Fusion Cages

Spine ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 25 (20) ◽  
pp. 2580-2587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey M. Toth ◽  
Howard B. Seim ◽  
Jeffrey D. Schwardt ◽  
Wendy B. Humphrey ◽  
Joel A. Wallskog ◽  
...  
2002 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Morone ◽  
Henry Feuer

The goal of spinal arthrodesis is a solid osseous union across one or more spinal segments. A solid bone union after arthrodesis is commonly known as a spinal fusion. Surgeons have begun to understand the biomechanical and biological factors that influence the bone-healing process. One of the most commonly used adjuncts is spinal instrumentation. Instrumentation has increased the spinal fusion rate; however, fusion failure (that is, nonunion or pseudarthrosis) remains significant. A less commonly used adjunct is electrical stimulation (ES). Investigators in experimental studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of ES on increasing the fusion rate. In this review the authors discuss the evidence concerning the benefits of ES as an adjunct to spinal arthrodesis. In addition, the different types of ES devices are described along with the current experimental and clinical evidence for each type of device.


Spine ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas C. Fredericks ◽  
Joseph Smucker ◽  
Emily B. Petersen ◽  
John A. Bobst ◽  
Jean C. Gan ◽  
...  

Spine ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 24 (20) ◽  
pp. 2127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin J. Bozic ◽  
Paul A. Glazer ◽  
David Zurakowski ◽  
Bruce J. Simon ◽  
Stephen J. Lipson ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 1238-1243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nai F. Tian ◽  
Yao S. Wu ◽  
Xiao L. Zhang ◽  
Fang M. Mao ◽  
Hua Z. Xu ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 461-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.Q. Huang ◽  
R.K. Shepherd ◽  
P.M. Center ◽  
P.M. Seligman ◽  
B. Tabor

1986 ◽  
Vol &NA; (204) ◽  
pp. 303???312
Author(s):  
CLAUDE L. R. S. LAGEY ◽  
JAN M. M. ROELOFS ◽  
LUCAS W. M. JANSSEN ◽  
MARIEN BREEDIJK ◽  
REN?? H. F. LENTFERINK ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Mei ◽  
Xiaoxu Song ◽  
Xiaoming Guan ◽  
Dou Wu ◽  
Junjie Wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background To evaluate the effect of postoperative BP treatment on improving the fusion rate after lumbar spinal fusion surgery by performing a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other comparative cohort studies. Methods A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed for RCTs and other comparative cohort studies on the effect of BP treatment on improving the fusion rate after lumbar spinal fusion surgery. The primary outcome measures were the number of patients with bone formation grades A, B, and C at 12 months of follow-up; fusion rates at 12 and 24 months of follow-up; vertebral compression fracture (VCF) at 12 and 24 months of follow-up; pedicle screw loosening at 24 months of follow-up; and cage subsidence, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the visual analogue score (VAS) at 12 months of follow-up. The final search was performed in July 2020. Results Seven studies with 401 patients were included. Compared with the placebo, BP treatment did not significantly alter the number of patients with bone formation grades A, B, and C, or the VAS at the 12-month follow-up or the fusion rates at the 12- and 24-month follow-ups. In addition, compared with the placebo, BPs significantly reduced the risks of VCF at the 12- and 24-month follow-ups, pedicle screw loosening at the 24-month follow-up, and cage subsidence and the ODI at the 12-month follow-up. Conclusions Postoperative BPs do not clearly improve bone formation and the fusion rate, but they reduce VCF, cage subsidence, and loosening of pedicle screws after lumbar fusion surgery compared with the control treatment.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Giovane Missé ◽  
Alexandre Moura dos Santos ◽  
Isabela Bruna Pires Borges ◽  
Marlise Sitima Mendes Simões ◽  
Lorenza Rosa Silveiro ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 631-636 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julio Urrutia ◽  
Rodrigo Mardones ◽  
Felipe Quezada

Object Several reports have shown that nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have an inhibitory effect in osteogenesis and reduce heterotopic ossification in humans. A deleterious effect of NSAIDs in posterolateral intertransverse process fusion has also been suggested. The authors used a validated rabbit model to try to determine the influence of the NSAID ketoprophen on the fusion rate in lumbar spinal arthrodesis. Methods Thirty New Zealand male rabbits underwent posterolateral (intertransverse process) bilateral spinal fusions at a single level, using autologous bone graft obtained from both iliac crests. The animals were randomized after the operation, so that 15 rabbits received ketoprophen as a postoperative analgesic and the other 15 received the postoperative analgesic tramadol. The animals were killed 8 weeks after surgery, and fusion status was determined by inspection, palpation, anteroposterior radiographs, and histological analysis. Results A solid fusion was obtained in eight rabbits (53%), and pseudarthrosis in seven rabbits (47%) in each group. Conclusions These findings suggest that the use of ketoprophen after intertransverse spinal fusion at a single level does not decrease the fusion rate, compared with tramadol.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document