Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 17: Bone growth stimulators as an adjunct for lumbar fusion

Abstract

<jats:p>The relationship between the formation of a solid arthrodesis and electrical and electromagnetic energy is well established; most of the information on the topic, however, pertains to the healing of long bone fractures. The use of both invasive and noninvasive means to supply this energy and supplement spinal fusions has been investigated. Three forms of electrical stimulation are routinely used: direct current stimulation (DCS), pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation (PEMFS), and capacitive coupled electrical stimulation (CCES). Only DCS requires the placement of electrodes within the fusion substrate and is inserted at the time of surgery. Since publication of the original guidelines, few studies have investigated the use of bone growth stimulators. Based on the current review, no conflict with the previous recommendations was generated. The use of DCS is recommended as an option for patients younger than 60 years of age, since a positive effect on fusion has been observed. The same, however, cannot be stated for patients over 60, because DCS did not appear to have an impact on fusion rates in this population. No study was reviewed that investigated the use of CCES or the routine use of PEMFS. A single low-level study demonstrated a positive impact of PEMFS on patients undergoing revision surgery for pseudarthrosis, but this single study is insufficient to recommend for or against the use of PEMFS in this patient population.</jats:p>

Capacitive-resistive radiofrequency therapy to treat postpartum perineal pain: A randomized study

“…However, our funding and staff constraints did not allow us to pursue RF sessions after hospital discharge. Nevertheless, scientific literature and recommendations regarding Tecar therapy efficiency are scarce [21][22]. Recently a paper reported a faster recovery among runners with greater increases in stride length, angle and height between two tests compared to a control group [12].…”

Topping-Off Technology versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis

“…Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is one of the main reasons for seeking medical treatment [1,2]. Since Albee [3] and Hibbs [4] first reported intervertebral fusion, it had been considered the standard surgical treatment for patients suffering from CLBP caused due to lumbar degenerative disease, including lumbar disc herniation, lumbar spinal stenosis, and lumbar spondylolisthesis [5]. Although favorable clinical outcomes could be achieved, there were still a series of complications [6], the major of which is the acceleration of adjacent segment diseases (ASDs) due to the increase in range of motion (ROM) of adjacent segments [7].…”

Contralateral bridge fixation of freehand minimally invasive pedicle screws combined with unilateral MIS-TLIF vs. open TLIF in the treatment of multi-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases: A five years retrospective study and finite element analysis

“…Lumbar fusion surgery is an effective surgical procedure for the treatment of spinal degenerative disorders ( 1 ). Since the introduction of PLIF by Cloward ( 2 , 3 ) in 1952, new techniques have been developed to accomplish lumbar interbody fusion.…”

“…Conventional posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF, TLIF) has yielded satisfactory clinical outcomes for lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs) ( 1 , 2 ). However, iatrogenic paraspinal muscle injury, posterior tension band disruption, and approach-related complications are a concern ( 2 , 3 ).…”