2009
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-009-0806-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative study of the use of electromagnetic fields in patients with pseudoarthrosis of tibia treated by intramedullary nailing

Abstract: We made a comparative cohort study in patients suffering from tibial pseudoarthrosis, all of whom were treated by intramedullary nailing. We divided patients into two groups: one treated by intramedullary nailing only (control group) and the other by intramedullary nailing combined with pulsed

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…With frequencies over 33 Hz, no effect on primary human osteoblast viability and function were observed [22], this might explain the lacking effect of the PEMF (75 Hz) in the study of Reilingh et al [17]. In another study, however, a higher rate of osseous consolidation after intramedullary nailing of tibial pseudarthrosis was shown, when patients were additionally exposed to ELF-PEMF (75 Hz) [37]. Lower frequency ELF-PEMF (15 Hz) proved to be effective in treating non-unions of long and non-long bone fractures [38].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With frequencies over 33 Hz, no effect on primary human osteoblast viability and function were observed [22], this might explain the lacking effect of the PEMF (75 Hz) in the study of Reilingh et al [17]. In another study, however, a higher rate of osseous consolidation after intramedullary nailing of tibial pseudarthrosis was shown, when patients were additionally exposed to ELF-PEMF (75 Hz) [37]. Lower frequency ELF-PEMF (15 Hz) proved to be effective in treating non-unions of long and non-long bone fractures [38].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PEMFs enhance proliferation and differentiation of osteoblasts, stimulating anabolic bone proteins (Barnaba et al, ; Esmail et al, ; Li et al, ; Zhai et al, ), and this aspect has already been investigated in vivo (Fini et al, ; Benazzo et al, ; Veronesi, Cadossi et al, ). For such evidences, PEMFs are employed in clinical settings for improving bone fracture healing, treating delayed or non‐unions and stimulating osteointegration in primary arthroplasty or revision surgeries (Cebrián et al, ; Dallari et al, ; Massari, Caruso, Sollazzo, & Setti, ).However, until now, no literature studies have yet evaluated PEMFs stimulation on PBMCs exposed to UHMWPE for counteracting wear debris mediated osteclastogenesis. Some literature studies, without particle exposure, confirm that PEMFs stimulation reduces OC number and Nfatc1 expression in mice osteoclast‐like cells (He et al, ), in rat bone marrow cells (Chang, Hong‐Shong Chang, Wu, & Shih, ; Chang, Chang, Tsai, & Shih, ), or in RAW264.7 cells (Zhang et al, ) and increases OC apoptosis (Chen et al, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The effects of an intramedullary implant with static magnetic field have not been established. The difference in our study is the application of the magnetic field in an implant [7].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%