Cargando…
Electrical Stimulation to Enhance Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review
Study Design Systematic review. Clinical Questions Compared with no stimulation, does electrical stimulation promote bone fusion after lumbar spinal fusion procedures? Does the effect differ based on the type of electrical stimulation used? Methods Electronic databases and reference lists of key art...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4174185/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25278882 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1386752 |
_version_ | 1782336320992968704 |
---|---|
author | Park, Paul Lau, Darryl Brodt, Erika D. Dettori, Joseph R. |
author_facet | Park, Paul Lau, Darryl Brodt, Erika D. Dettori, Joseph R. |
author_sort | Park, Paul |
collection | PubMed |
description | Study Design Systematic review. Clinical Questions Compared with no stimulation, does electrical stimulation promote bone fusion after lumbar spinal fusion procedures? Does the effect differ based on the type of electrical stimulation used? Methods Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched up to October 15, 2013, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of electrical stimulation to no electrical stimulation on fusion rates after lumbar spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative disease. Two independent reviewers assessed the strength of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Results Six RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The following types of electrical stimulation were investigated: direct current (three studies), pulsed electromagnetic field (three studies), and capacitive coupling (one study). The control groups consisted of no stimulation (two studies) or placebo (four studies). Marked heterogeneity in study populations, characteristics, and design prevented a meta-analysis. Regardless of the type of electrical stimulation used, cumulative incidences of fusion varied widely across the RCTs, ranging from 35.4 to 90.6% in the intervention groups and from 33.3 to 81.9% in the control groups across 9 to 24 months of follow-up. Similarly, when stratified by the type of electrical stimulation used, fusion outcomes from individual studies varied, leading to inconsistent and conflicting results. Conclusion Given the inconsistency in study results, possibly due to heterogeneity in study populations/characteristics and quality, we are unable to conclude that electrical stimulation results in better fusion outcomes compared with no stimulation. The overall strength of evidence for the conclusions is low. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4174185 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Georg Thieme Verlag KG |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-41741852015-10-01 Electrical Stimulation to Enhance Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review Park, Paul Lau, Darryl Brodt, Erika D. Dettori, Joseph R. Evid Based Spine Care J Article Study Design Systematic review. Clinical Questions Compared with no stimulation, does electrical stimulation promote bone fusion after lumbar spinal fusion procedures? Does the effect differ based on the type of electrical stimulation used? Methods Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched up to October 15, 2013, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of electrical stimulation to no electrical stimulation on fusion rates after lumbar spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative disease. Two independent reviewers assessed the strength of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Results Six RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The following types of electrical stimulation were investigated: direct current (three studies), pulsed electromagnetic field (three studies), and capacitive coupling (one study). The control groups consisted of no stimulation (two studies) or placebo (four studies). Marked heterogeneity in study populations, characteristics, and design prevented a meta-analysis. Regardless of the type of electrical stimulation used, cumulative incidences of fusion varied widely across the RCTs, ranging from 35.4 to 90.6% in the intervention groups and from 33.3 to 81.9% in the control groups across 9 to 24 months of follow-up. Similarly, when stratified by the type of electrical stimulation used, fusion outcomes from individual studies varied, leading to inconsistent and conflicting results. Conclusion Given the inconsistency in study results, possibly due to heterogeneity in study populations/characteristics and quality, we are unable to conclude that electrical stimulation results in better fusion outcomes compared with no stimulation. The overall strength of evidence for the conclusions is low. Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2014-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4174185/ /pubmed/25278882 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1386752 Text en © Thieme Medical Publishers |
spellingShingle | Article Park, Paul Lau, Darryl Brodt, Erika D. Dettori, Joseph R. Electrical Stimulation to Enhance Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review |
title | Electrical Stimulation to Enhance Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review |
title_full | Electrical Stimulation to Enhance Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | Electrical Stimulation to Enhance Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Electrical Stimulation to Enhance Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review |
title_short | Electrical Stimulation to Enhance Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review |
title_sort | electrical stimulation to enhance spinal fusion: a systematic review |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4174185/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25278882 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1386752 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT parkpaul electricalstimulationtoenhancespinalfusionasystematicreview AT laudarryl electricalstimulationtoenhancespinalfusionasystematicreview AT brodterikad electricalstimulationtoenhancespinalfusionasystematicreview AT dettorijosephr electricalstimulationtoenhancespinalfusionasystematicreview |