PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 22, 2017BMJ127 citationsOpen Access

Low intensity pulsed ultrasound for bone healing: systematic review of randomized controlled trials

SSStefan SchandelmaierUniversity of BaselAKAlka KaushalNational Institute of Mental Health and NeurosciencesLLLyubov LytvynImpact

Key Points

  • To determine whether low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) accelerates healing and improves functional outcomes in patients with bone fractures or osteotomies.
  • Systematic review and meta-analysis searching Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central up to November 2016 for randomized controlled trials comparing LIPUS to sham or no device.
  • Included 26 randomized controlled trials with a median sample size of 30 patients (range 8–501).
  • Assessed risk of bias and utilized the GRADE framework to evaluate evidence certainty for patient-important and radiographic outcomes.
  • Across trials, LIPUS did not significantly decrease time to return to work (2.7% later with LIPUS, 95% CI -7.7% to 14.3%) or subsequent operations (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.16).
  • In high-quality trials with low risk of bias, LIPUS showed no benefit for days to weight bearing (4.8% later, 95% CI -4.0% to 14.4%), pain at 4–6 weeks (mean difference -0.93 points on a 0–100 scale, 95% CI -2.51 to 0.64), or radiographic healing (1.7% earlier, 95% CI -11.2% to 8.8%).
  • Apparent benefits for pain and healing were isolated exclusively to trials with a high risk of bias (interaction P < 0.001).

Abstract

Objective To determine the efficacy of low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) for healing of fracture or osteotomy. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and trial registries up to November 2016. Study selection Randomized controlled trials of LIPUS compared with sham device or no device in patients with any kind of fracture or osteotomy. Review methods Two independent reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee ( BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of evidence. Results 26 randomized controlled trials with a median sample size of 30 (range 8-501) were included. The most trustworthy evidence came from four trials at low risk of bias that included patients with tibia or clavicle fractures. Compared with control, LIPUS did not reduce time to return to work (percentage difference: 2.7% later with LIPUS, 95% confidence interval 7.7% earlier to 14.3% later; moderate certainty) or the number of subsequent operations (risk ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.16; moderate certainty). For pain, days to weight bearing, and radiographic healing, effects varied substantially among studies. For all three outcomes, trials at low risk of bias failed to show a benefit with LIPUS, while trials at high risk of bias suggested a benefit (interaction P<0.001). When only trials at low risk of bias trials were considered, LIPUS did not reduce days to weight bearing (4.8% later, 4.0% earlier to 14.4% later; high certainty), pain at four to six weeks (mean difference on 0-100 visual analogue scale: 0.93 lower, 2.51 lower to 0.64 higher; high certainty), and days to radiographic healing (1.7% earlier, 11.2% earlier to 8.8% later; moderate certainty). Conclusions Based on moderate to high quality evidence from studies in patients with fresh fracture, LIPUS does not improve outcomes important to patients and probably has no effect on radiographic bone healing. The applicability to other types of fracture or osteotomy is open to debate. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016050965

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Schandelmaier et al. (2017) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1757920256ba8a08787cabhttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j656
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1The use of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound for the treatment of established nonunion fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis2026
  2. 2Efficacy of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound in surgically managed lower limb fractures: a randomised controlled trial2026
  3. 3AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF LOW INTENSITY PULSED ULTRASOUND ON THE HEALING OF MANDIBULAR FRACTURES A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL2024
  4. 4LIPUS: An Effective Alternate Option to Treat Nonunions of Fractures and Surgical Fusions in Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery2021 · 1 citations
  5. 5Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Enhances Intramembranous Bone Healing in a Critical-Size Bone Defect of the Rat Calvaria2026