The Effect of Low Magnitude High Frequency Vibration on Bone Healing by Clamp Method in Nonunion Tibial Fractures
Abstract
References
- 1. Sprague S, Bhandari M. An economic evaluation of early versus delayed operative treatment in patients with closed tibial shaft fractures. Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery 2002; 122:315-23.
- 2. Dailey HL, Wu KA, Wu PS, McQueen MM, Court-Brown CM. Tibial fracture non union and time to healing following reamed intramedullary nailing: Risk factorsbased on a single-centrereview of 1003 patients. Journal of OrthopaedicTrauma 2018;32(7):263-69.
- 3. Heckman JD, Sarasohn-Kahn J. The economics of treating tibia fractures. The cost of delayed unions. Bulletin 1997; 56:63-72.
- 4. Gomez-Barrena E, Rosset P, Lozano D, et al. Bone fracture healing: cell therapy in delayed unions and nonunions. Bone 2015;70:93-101.
- 5. Button G, Pinney S. A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system? Foot Ankle Int 2004; 25:521–25.
The Effect of Low Magnitude High Frequency Vibration on Bone Healing by Clamp Method in Nonunion Tibial Fractures
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to investigate the clinical effect of Low Magnitude High Frequency Vibration (LMHFV) on nonunion tibial fractures, noninvasively.
Methods: The Experimental (n=5) and control (n=5) groups were age-matched and pooled based on the Nonunion Tibia Score System (NUSS) (p>0.05). LMHFV (0.35g, 50 Hz, 20 minutes x 4/day) was applied to the experimental group for three months by a mechanical stimulator that we developed using a ‘clamp method’. The control group was followed during three months without any application other than routine treatment. The results were evaluated using the Radiographic Union Score for Tibial Fractures (RUST) and American Orthopedics Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS). No statistically significant difference was observed between the groups at the beginning and in the end of the 3- month application for RUST and AOFAS scores (p>0.05).
Results: Pain and function assessment, at the beginning and end of the study, as a part of The AOFAS scorewere not statistically different (p>0.05) in the control group. However, increases in pain and function AOFAS scores were statistically significant in the experimental group at the end of the 3- month application (p<0.034 and p<0.043, respectively).
Conclusion: In this study, LMHFV contributed to the pain and function parameters of AOFAS in the experimental group; however, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of total RUST and AOFAS scores.
References
- 1. Sprague S, Bhandari M. An economic evaluation of early versus delayed operative treatment in patients with closed tibial shaft fractures. Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery 2002; 122:315-23.
- 2. Dailey HL, Wu KA, Wu PS, McQueen MM, Court-Brown CM. Tibial fracture non union and time to healing following reamed intramedullary nailing: Risk factorsbased on a single-centrereview of 1003 patients. Journal of OrthopaedicTrauma 2018;32(7):263-69.
- 3. Heckman JD, Sarasohn-Kahn J. The economics of treating tibia fractures. The cost of delayed unions. Bulletin 1997; 56:63-72.
- 4. Gomez-Barrena E, Rosset P, Lozano D, et al. Bone fracture healing: cell therapy in delayed unions and nonunions. Bone 2015;70:93-101.
- 5. Button G, Pinney S. A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system? Foot Ankle Int 2004; 25:521–25.
Details
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Health Care Administration |
| Journal Section | Original Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | December 19, 2022 |
| Submission Date | October 6, 2022 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2022 Volume: 49 Issue: 4 |