Nicksic Peter J, Donnelly D'Andrea T, Hesse Madison, Bedi Simran, Verma Nishant, Seitz Allison J, Shoffstall Andrew J, Ludwig Kip A, Dingle Aaron M, Poore Samuel O
Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States.
Des Moines University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Des Moines, IA, United States.
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022 Feb 14;10:793945. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.793945. eCollection 2022.
Since the piezoelectric quality of bone was discovered in 1957, scientists have applied exogenous electrical stimulation for the purpose of healing. Despite the efforts made over the past 60 years, electronic bone growth stimulators are not in common clinical use. Reasons for this include high cost and lack of faith in the efficacy of bone growth stimulators on behalf of clinicians. The purpose of this narrative review is to examine the preclinical body of literature supporting electrical stimulation and its effect on bone properties and elucidate gaps in clinical translation with an emphasis on device specifications and mechanisms of action. When examining these studies, trends become apparent. and small animal studies are successful in inducing osteogenesis with all electrical stimulation modalities: direct current, pulsed electromagnetic field, and capacitive coupling. However, large animal studies are largely unsuccessful with the non-invasive modalities. This may be due to issues of scale and thickness of tissue planes with varying levels of resistivity, not present in small animal models. Additionally, it is difficult to draw conclusions from studies due to the varying units of stimulation strength and stimulation protocols and incomplete device specification reporting. To better understand the disconnect between the large and small animal model, the authors recommend increasing scientific rigor for these studies and reporting a novel minimum set of parameters depending on the stimulation modality.
自1957年发现骨骼的压电性质以来,科学家们一直应用外部电刺激来促进愈合。尽管在过去60年里付出了诸多努力,但电子骨生长刺激器在临床中并未得到广泛应用。其原因包括成本高昂以及临床医生对骨生长刺激器的疗效缺乏信心。本叙述性综述的目的是审视支持电刺激及其对骨特性影响的临床前文献,并阐明临床转化中的差距,重点关注设备规格和作用机制。在审视这些研究时,趋势变得显而易见。小动物研究成功地通过所有电刺激方式诱导了成骨:直流电、脉冲电磁场和电容耦合。然而,大型动物研究在非侵入性方式上大多未取得成功。这可能是由于组织平面的规模和厚度问题以及不同程度的电阻率,而这些在小动物模型中并不存在。此外,由于刺激强度和刺激方案的单位不同以及设备规格报告不完整,很难从研究中得出结论。为了更好地理解大型和小型动物模型之间的脱节,作者建议提高这些研究的科学严谨性,并根据刺激方式报告一组新的最低参数。