Dataset Information

Low-intensity pulsed ultrasonography versus electrical stimulation for fracture healing: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:To best inform evidence-based patient care, it is often desirable to compare competing therapies. We performed a network meta-analysis to indirectly compare low intensity pulsed ultrasonography (LIPUS) with electrical stimulation (ESTIM) for fracture healing. METHODS:We searched the reference lists of recent reviews evaluating LIPUS and ESTIM that included studies published up to 2011 from 4 electronic databases. We updated the searches of all electronic databases up to April 2012. Eligible trials were those that included patients with a fresh fracture or an existing delayed union or nonunion who were randomized to LIPUS or ESTIM as well as a control group. Two pairs of reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened titles and abstracts, reviewed the full text of potentially eligible articles, extracted data and assessed study quality. We used standard and network meta-analytic techniques to synthesize the data. RESULTS:Of the 27 eligible trials, 15 provided data for our analyses. In patients with a fresh fracture, there was a suggested benefit of LIPUS at 6 months (risk ratio [RR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.41). In patients with an existing nonunion or delayed union, ESTIM had a suggested benefit over standard care on union rates at 3 months (RR 2.05, 95% CI 0.99-4.24). We found very low-quality evidence suggesting a potential benefit of LIPUS versus ESTIM in improving union rates at 6 months (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58-1.01) in fresh fracture populations. CONCLUSION:To support our findings direct comparative trials with safeguards against bias assessing outcomes important to patients, such as functional recovery, are required.

SUBMITTER: Ebrahim S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4035413 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Low-intensity pulsed ultrasonography versus electrical stimulation for fracture healing: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Ebrahim Shanil S Mollon Brent B Bance Sheena S Busse Jason W JW Bhandari Mohit M

Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 20140601 3

<h4>Background</h4>To best inform evidence-based patient care, it is often desirable to compare competing therapies. We performed a network meta-analysis to indirectly compare low intensity pulsed ultrasonography (LIPUS) with electrical stimulation (ESTIM) for fracture healing.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched the reference lists of recent reviews evaluating LIPUS and ESTIM that included studies published up to 2011 from 4 electronic databases. We updated the searches of all electronic databases up to ...[more]

PMID: 24869616

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective To determine the efficacy of low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) for healing of fracture or osteotomy.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and trial registries up to November 2016.Study selection Randomized controlled trials of LIPUS compared with sham device or no device in patients with any kind of fracture or osteotomy.Review methods Two independent reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of evidence.Results 26 randomized controlled trials with a median sample size of 30 (range 8-501) were included. The most trustworthy evidence came from four trials at low risk of bias that included patients with tibia or clavicle fractures. Compared with control, LIPUS did not reduce time to return to work (percentage difference: 2.7% later with LIPUS, 95% confidence interval 7.7% earlier to 14.3% later; moderate certainty) or the number of subsequent operations (risk ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.16; moderate certainty). For pain, days to weight bearing, and radiographic healing, effects varied substantially among studies. For all three outcomes, trials at low risk of bias failed to show a benefit with LIPUS, while trials at high risk of bias suggested a benefit (interaction P<0.001). When only trials at low risk of bias trials were considered, LIPUS did not reduce days to weight bearing (4.8% later, 4.0% earlier to 14.4% later; high certainty), pain at four to six weeks (mean difference on 0-100 visual analogue scale: 0.93 lower, 2.51 lower to 0.64 higher; high certainty), and days to radiographic healing (1.7% earlier, 11.2% earlier to 8.8% later; moderate certainty).Conclusions Based on moderate to high quality evidence from studies in patients with fresh fracture, LIPUS does not improve outcomes important to patients and probably has no effect on radiographic bone healing. The applicability to other types of fracture or osteotomy is open to debate.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016050965.

Project description:PurposeTo determine whether adjuvant use of bone stimulation would improve the rate of healing in the operative management of stable osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) of the knee in pediatric patients.MethodsThis retrospective matched case-control study was performed at a single tertiary care pediatric hospital between January 2015 and September 2018. Patients who underwent antegrade drilling for stable femoral condyle OCD with greater than 2 years' follow-up were included. Preference was for all to receive postoperative bone stimulation; however, some were denied because of insurance coverage. This enabled us to create 2 matched groups of those who received postoperative bone stimulation and those who did not. Patients were matched on skeletal maturity, lesion location, sex, and age at surgery. The primary outcome measure was the rate of healing of the lesions determined by postoperative magnetic resonance imaging measurements at 3 months.ResultsFifty-five patients were identified who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Twenty patients from the bone stimulator group (BSTIM) were matched to 20 patients from the no bone stimulator group (NBSTIM). Mean age for BSTIM at surgery was 13.2 years ± 2.0 (range, 10.9-16.7) and for NBSTIM at surgery 12.9 years ± 2.0 (range, 9.3-17.3). At 2 years, 36 patients (90%) in both groups went on to clinical healing without further interventions. In BSTIM, there was a mean decrease of 0.9 (±1.8) mm in lesion on coronal width and 12 patients (63%) had overall improved healing; in NBSTIM there was a mean decrease of 0.8 (±3.6) mm in coronal width and 14 patients (78%) had improved healing. No statistical differences in the rate of healing were found between the 2 groups (P = .706).ConclusionIn antegrade drilling of stable knee OCD lesions in pediatric and adolescent patients, adjuvant bone stimulator use did not appear to improve radiographic or clinical healing.Level of evidenceLevel III, retrospective case-control study.

Dataset Information

Low-intensity pulsed ultrasonography versus electrical stimulation for fracture healing: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Publications

Low-intensity pulsed ultrasonography versus electrical stimulation for fracture healing: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets