文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

Randomized, prospective, and controlled clinical trial of pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation for cervical fusion.

作者信息

Foley Kevin T, Mroz Thomas E, Arnold Paul M, Chandler Howard C, Dixon Robert A, Girasole Gerard J, Renkens Kenneth L, Riew K Daniel, Sasso Rick C, Smith Richard C, Tung Howard, Wecht Daniel A, Whiting Donald M

机构信息

Department of Neurosurgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center and Semmes-Murphey Neurologic and Spine Institute, Memphis, Tennessee 38104, USA.

出版信息

Spine J. 2008 May-Jun;8(3):436-42. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.06.006. Epub 2007 Jul 17.


DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.06.006
PMID:17983841
Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Multilevel fusions, the use of allograft bone, and smoking have been associated with an increased risk of nonunion after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation has been shown to increase arthrodesis rates after lumbar spine fusion surgery, but there are minimal data concerning the effect of PEMF stimulation on cervical spine fusion. PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and safety of PEMF stimulation as an adjunct to arthrodesis after ACDF in patients with potential risk factors for nonunion. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, controlled, prospective multicenter clinical trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: Three hundred and twenty-three patients with radiographic evidence (computed tomography-myelogram [CT-myelo] or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) of a compressed cervical nerve root and symptomatic radiculopathy appropriate to the compressed root that had failed to respond to nonoperative management were enrolled in the study. The patients were either smokers (more than one pack per day) and/or were undergoing multilevel fusions. All patients underwent ACDF using the Smith-Robinson technique. Allograft bone and an anterior cervical plate were used in all cases. OUTCOME MEASURES: Measurements were obtained preoperatively and at each postoperative interval and included neurologic assessment, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for shoulder/arm pain at rest and with activity, SF-12 scores, the neck disability index (NDI), and radiographs (anteroposterior, lateral, and flexion-extension views). Two orthopedic surgeons not otherwise affiliated with the study and blinded to treatment group evaluated the radiographs, as did a blinded radiologist. Adverse events were reported by all patients throughout the study to determine device safety. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: those receiving PEMF stimulation after surgery (PEMF group, 163 patients) and those not receiving PEMF stimulation (control group, 160 patients). Postoperative care was otherwise identical. Follow-up was carried out at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The PEMF and control groups were comparable with regard to age, gender, race, past medical history, smoking status, and litigation status. Both groups were also comparable in terms of baseline diagnosis (herniated disc, spondylosis, or both) and number of levels operated (one, two, three, or four). At 6 months postoperatively, the PEMF group had a significantly higher fusion rate than the control group (83.6% vs. 68.6%, p=.0065). At 12 months after surgery, the stimulated group had a fusion rate of 92.8% compared with 86.7% for the control group (p=.1129). There were no significant differences between the PEMF and control groups with regard to VAS pain scores, NDI, or SF-12 scores at 6 or 12 months. No significant differences were found in the incidence of adverse events in the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized, controlled trial that analyzes the effects of PEMF stimulation on cervical spine fusion. PEMF stimulation significantly improved the fusion rate at 6 months postoperatively in patients undergoing ACDF with an allograft and an anterior cervical plate, the eligibility criteria being patients who were smokers or had undergone multilevel cervical fusion. At 12 months postoperatively, however, the fusion rate for PEMF patients was not significantly different from that of the control group. There were no differences in the incidence of adverse events in the two groups, indicating that the use of PEMF stimulation is safe in this clinical setting.

摘要

相似文献

[1]
Randomized, prospective, and controlled clinical trial of pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation for cervical fusion.

Spine J. 2008

[2]
Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007-12-15

[3]
Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease.

Spine J. 2009-4

[4]
Does rigid instrumentation increase the fusion rate in one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion?

Spine J. 2004

[5]
Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty a prospective, randomized, controlled, single site trial with 48-month follow-up.

J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010-8

[6]
Prospective nonrandomized comparison of an allograft with bone morphogenic protein versus an iliac-crest autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Spine J. 2008

[7]
Lateral mass screw-rod fixation of the cervical spine: a prospective clinical series with 1-year follow-up.

Spine J. 2003

[8]
The safety and efficacy of OP-1 (rhBMP-7) as a replacement for iliac crest autograft for posterolateral lumbar arthrodesis: minimum 4-year follow-up of a pilot study.

Spine J. 2008

[9]
Comparison between allograft plus demineralized bone matrix versus autograft in anterior cervical fusion. A prospective multicenter study.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995-10-15

[10]
Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008-5-20

引用本文的文献

[1]
Effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions after cervical neurosurgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ir J Med Sci. 2025-7-25

[2]
Gathering Evidence to Leverage Musculoskeletal Magnetic Stimulation Towards Clinical Applicability.

Small Sci. 2024-2-26

[3]
Microbiome modulation of implant-related infection by a novel miniaturized pulsed electromagnetic field device.

NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2025-2-26

[4]
Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields for Cervical Spine Fusion in Patients with Risk Factors for Pseudarthrosis.

Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2024-10-3

[5]
Efficacy of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on pain and physical function in patients with non-specific low back pain: a systematic review.

Wien Med Wochenschr. 2025-2

[6]
Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Stimulation in Lumbar Spine Fusion for Patients With Risk Factors for Pseudarthrosis.

Int J Spine Surg. 2023-12-26

[7]
Postoperative Rehabilitation to Improve Outcomes After Cervical Spine Fusion for Degenerative Cervical Spondylosis: A Systematic Review.

Cureus. 2023-5-16

[8]
Ion channels as molecular targets of glioblastoma electrotherapy.

Front Cell Neurosci. 2023-3-17

[9]
Harnessing electromagnetic fields to assist bone tissue engineering.

Stem Cell Res Ther. 2023-1-11

[10]
In Vitro and in Vivo Study of the Effect of Osteogenic Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields on Breast and Lung Cancer Cells.

Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2022

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索