Cargando…

Effects of biophysical stimulation in patients undergoing arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: prospective, randomized and double blind study

Pre-clinical studies have shown that treatment by pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) can limit the catabolic effects of pro-inflammatory cytokines on articular cartilage and favour the anabolic activity of the chondrocytes. Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is usually performed by a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Benazzo, Francesco, Zanon, Giacomo, Pederzini, Luigi, Modonesi, Fulvio, Cardile, Carlo, Falez, Francesco, Ciolli, Luigi, Cava, Filippo La, Giannini, Sandro, Buda, Roberto, Setti, Stefania, Caruso, Gaetano, Massari, Leo
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2413121/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18385980
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-008-0519-9
_version_ 1782156019376324608
author Benazzo, Francesco
Zanon, Giacomo
Pederzini, Luigi
Modonesi, Fulvio
Cardile, Carlo
Falez, Francesco
Ciolli, Luigi
Cava, Filippo La
Giannini, Sandro
Buda, Roberto
Setti, Stefania
Caruso, Gaetano
Massari, Leo
author_facet Benazzo, Francesco
Zanon, Giacomo
Pederzini, Luigi
Modonesi, Fulvio
Cardile, Carlo
Falez, Francesco
Ciolli, Luigi
Cava, Filippo La
Giannini, Sandro
Buda, Roberto
Setti, Stefania
Caruso, Gaetano
Massari, Leo
author_sort Benazzo, Francesco
collection PubMed
description Pre-clinical studies have shown that treatment by pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) can limit the catabolic effects of pro-inflammatory cytokines on articular cartilage and favour the anabolic activity of the chondrocytes. Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is usually performed by arthroscopic procedure that, even if minimally invasive, may elicit an inflammatory joint reaction detrimental to articular cartilage. In this study the effect of I-ONE PEMFs treatment in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction was investigated. The study end-points were (1) evaluation of patients’ functional recovery by International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Form; (2) use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), necessary to control joint pain and inflammation. The study design was prospective, randomized and double blind. Sixty-nine patients were included in the study at baseline. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 30, 60 and 180 days, followed by 2-year follow-up interview. Patients were evaluated by IKDC Form and were asked to report on the use of NSAIDs. Patients were randomized to active or placebo treatments; active device generated a magnetic field of 1.5 mT at 75 Hz. Patients were instructed to use the stimulator (I-ONE) for 4 h per day for 60 days. All patients underwent ACL reconstruction with use of quadruple hamstrings semitendinosus and gracilis technique. At baseline there were no differences in the IKDC scores between the two groups. At follow-up visits the SF-36 Health Survey score showed a statistically significant faster recovery in the group of patients treated with I-ONE stimulator (P < 0.05). NSAIDs use was less frequent among active patients than controls (P < 0.05). Joint swelling resolution and return to normal range of motion occurred faster in the active treated group (P < 0.05) too. The 2-year follow-up did not shown statistically significant difference between the two groups. Furthermore for longitudinal analysis the generalized linear mixed effects model was applied to calculate the group × time interaction coefficient; this interaction showed a significant difference (P < 0.0001) between the active and placebo groups for all investigated variables: SF-36 Health Survey, IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation and VAS. Twenty-nine patients (15 in the active group; 14 in the placebo group) underwent both ACL reconstruction and meniscectomy; when they were analysed separately the differences in SF-36 Health Survey scores between the two groups were larger then what observed in the whole study group (P < 0.05). The results of this study show that patient’s functional recovery occurs earlier in the active group. No side effects were observed and the treatment was well tolerated. The use of I-ONE should always be considered after ACL reconstruction, particularly in professional athletes, to shorten the recovery time, to limit joint inflammatory reaction and its catabolic effects on articular cartilage and ultimately for joint preservation.
format Text
id pubmed-2413121
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-24131212008-06-05 Effects of biophysical stimulation in patients undergoing arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: prospective, randomized and double blind study Benazzo, Francesco Zanon, Giacomo Pederzini, Luigi Modonesi, Fulvio Cardile, Carlo Falez, Francesco Ciolli, Luigi Cava, Filippo La Giannini, Sandro Buda, Roberto Setti, Stefania Caruso, Gaetano Massari, Leo Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Knee Pre-clinical studies have shown that treatment by pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) can limit the catabolic effects of pro-inflammatory cytokines on articular cartilage and favour the anabolic activity of the chondrocytes. Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is usually performed by arthroscopic procedure that, even if minimally invasive, may elicit an inflammatory joint reaction detrimental to articular cartilage. In this study the effect of I-ONE PEMFs treatment in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction was investigated. The study end-points were (1) evaluation of patients’ functional recovery by International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Form; (2) use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), necessary to control joint pain and inflammation. The study design was prospective, randomized and double blind. Sixty-nine patients were included in the study at baseline. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 30, 60 and 180 days, followed by 2-year follow-up interview. Patients were evaluated by IKDC Form and were asked to report on the use of NSAIDs. Patients were randomized to active or placebo treatments; active device generated a magnetic field of 1.5 mT at 75 Hz. Patients were instructed to use the stimulator (I-ONE) for 4 h per day for 60 days. All patients underwent ACL reconstruction with use of quadruple hamstrings semitendinosus and gracilis technique. At baseline there were no differences in the IKDC scores between the two groups. At follow-up visits the SF-36 Health Survey score showed a statistically significant faster recovery in the group of patients treated with I-ONE stimulator (P < 0.05). NSAIDs use was less frequent among active patients than controls (P < 0.05). Joint swelling resolution and return to normal range of motion occurred faster in the active treated group (P < 0.05) too. The 2-year follow-up did not shown statistically significant difference between the two groups. Furthermore for longitudinal analysis the generalized linear mixed effects model was applied to calculate the group × time interaction coefficient; this interaction showed a significant difference (P < 0.0001) between the active and placebo groups for all investigated variables: SF-36 Health Survey, IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation and VAS. Twenty-nine patients (15 in the active group; 14 in the placebo group) underwent both ACL reconstruction and meniscectomy; when they were analysed separately the differences in SF-36 Health Survey scores between the two groups were larger then what observed in the whole study group (P < 0.05). The results of this study show that patient’s functional recovery occurs earlier in the active group. No side effects were observed and the treatment was well tolerated. The use of I-ONE should always be considered after ACL reconstruction, particularly in professional athletes, to shorten the recovery time, to limit joint inflammatory reaction and its catabolic effects on articular cartilage and ultimately for joint preservation. Springer-Verlag 2008-04-02 2008-06 /pmc/articles/PMC2413121/ /pubmed/18385980 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-008-0519-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2008
spellingShingle Knee
Benazzo, Francesco
Zanon, Giacomo
Pederzini, Luigi
Modonesi, Fulvio
Cardile, Carlo
Falez, Francesco
Ciolli, Luigi
Cava, Filippo La
Giannini, Sandro
Buda, Roberto
Setti, Stefania
Caruso, Gaetano
Massari, Leo
Effects of biophysical stimulation in patients undergoing arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: prospective, randomized and double blind study
title Effects of biophysical stimulation in patients undergoing arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: prospective, randomized and double blind study
title_full Effects of biophysical stimulation in patients undergoing arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: prospective, randomized and double blind study
title_fullStr Effects of biophysical stimulation in patients undergoing arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: prospective, randomized and double blind study
title_full_unstemmed Effects of biophysical stimulation in patients undergoing arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: prospective, randomized and double blind study
title_short Effects of biophysical stimulation in patients undergoing arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: prospective, randomized and double blind study
title_sort effects of biophysical stimulation in patients undergoing arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: prospective, randomized and double blind study
topic Knee
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2413121/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18385980
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-008-0519-9
work_keys_str_mv AT benazzofrancesco effectsofbiophysicalstimulationinpatientsundergoingarthroscopicreconstructionofanteriorcruciateligamentprospectiverandomizedanddoubleblindstudy
AT zanongiacomo effectsofbiophysicalstimulationinpatientsundergoingarthroscopicreconstructionofanteriorcruciateligamentprospectiverandomizedanddoubleblindstudy
AT pederziniluigi effectsofbiophysicalstimulationinpatientsundergoingarthroscopicreconstructionofanteriorcruciateligamentprospectiverandomizedanddoubleblindstudy
AT modonesifulvio effectsofbiophysicalstimulationinpatientsundergoingarthroscopicreconstructionofanteriorcruciateligamentprospectiverandomizedanddoubleblindstudy
AT cardilecarlo effectsofbiophysicalstimulationinpatientsundergoingarthroscopicreconstructionofanteriorcruciateligamentprospectiverandomizedanddoubleblindstudy
AT falezfrancesco effectsofbiophysicalstimulationinpatientsundergoingarthroscopicreconstructionofanteriorcruciateligamentprospectiverandomizedanddoubleblindstudy
AT ciolliluigi effectsofbiophysicalstimulationinpatientsundergoingarthroscopicreconstructionofanteriorcruciateligamentprospectiverandomizedanddoubleblindstudy
AT cavafilippola effectsofbiophysicalstimulationinpatientsundergoingarthroscopicreconstructionofanteriorcruciateligamentprospectiverandomizedanddoubleblindstudy
AT gianninisandro effectsofbiophysicalstimulationinpatientsundergoingarthroscopicreconstructionofanteriorcruciateligamentprospectiverandomizedanddoubleblindstudy
AT budaroberto effectsofbiophysicalstimulationinpatientsundergoingarthroscopicreconstructionofanteriorcruciateligamentprospectiverandomizedanddoubleblindstudy
AT settistefania effectsofbiophysicalstimulationinpatientsundergoingarthroscopicreconstructionofanteriorcruciateligamentprospectiverandomizedanddoubleblindstudy
AT carusogaetano effectsofbiophysicalstimulationinpatientsundergoingarthroscopicreconstructionofanteriorcruciateligamentprospectiverandomizedanddoubleblindstudy
AT massarileo effectsofbiophysicalstimulationinpatientsundergoingarthroscopicreconstructionofanteriorcruciateligamentprospectiverandomizedanddoubleblindstudy