Effect of electromagnetic fields on patients undergoing massive bone graft following bone tumor resection: A double blind study

R. Capanna, D. Donati, C. Masetti, M. Manfrini, Albert A. Panozzo, R. Cadossi, M. Campanacci

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

37 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Massive bone allograft after tumor resection has been used for over 20 years. Many factors negatively influence the healing of the junction between the allograft and the host bone, resulting in a low healing rate and lengthy time to union. This study evaluated whether pulsing electromagnetic field stimulation could be advantageously used in these patients. A double blind prospective randomized study was designed. Eighty three host graft junctions in 47 patients were considered. The overall host graft junction healing rate was the same (67%) in both control and active stimulated patients. Although not statistically significant, a positive effect of pulsing electromagnetic fields was observed for those host graft junctions with a cortico-cortical contact between allograft and host bone. When adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy was not employed, a definite effect of pulsing electromagnetic field stimulation was observed: the healing time decreased from 9.4 months in the control group to 6.7 months in the active stimulated group (p < 0.001). This effect would have been lost if chemotherapy was employed. There was also no advantage in supplement with iliac crest autografts at the host graft junction site if chemotherapy was used. Factors that significantly influenced the host graft junction healing rate were: chemotherapy; type of allograft host bone contact; quality of host graft junction; and, in intercalary allografts, use of the osteosynthesis device. No difference was observed between control and active groups for patient survival or number of local or distal tumor recurrences.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)213-221
Number of pages9
JournalClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
Issue number306
StatePublished - 1994
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Electromagnetic Fields
Double-Blind Method
Allografts
Transplants
Bone and Bones
Neoplasms
Drug Therapy
Control Groups
Autografts
Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Prospective Studies
Recurrence
Equipment and Supplies
Survival

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Effect of electromagnetic fields on patients undergoing massive bone graft following bone tumor resection : A double blind study. / Capanna, R.; Donati, D.; Masetti, C.; Manfrini, M.; Panozzo, Albert A.; Cadossi, R.; Campanacci, M.

In: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 306, 1994, p. 213-221.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{96a9bcd5b5cd49059da8b72d88c2a700,
title = "Effect of electromagnetic fields on patients undergoing massive bone graft following bone tumor resection: A double blind study",
abstract = "Massive bone allograft after tumor resection has been used for over 20 years. Many factors negatively influence the healing of the junction between the allograft and the host bone, resulting in a low healing rate and lengthy time to union. This study evaluated whether pulsing electromagnetic field stimulation could be advantageously used in these patients. A double blind prospective randomized study was designed. Eighty three host graft junctions in 47 patients were considered. The overall host graft junction healing rate was the same (67{\%}) in both control and active stimulated patients. Although not statistically significant, a positive effect of pulsing electromagnetic fields was observed for those host graft junctions with a cortico-cortical contact between allograft and host bone. When adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy was not employed, a definite effect of pulsing electromagnetic field stimulation was observed: the healing time decreased from 9.4 months in the control group to 6.7 months in the active stimulated group (p < 0.001). This effect would have been lost if chemotherapy was employed. There was also no advantage in supplement with iliac crest autografts at the host graft junction site if chemotherapy was used. Factors that significantly influenced the host graft junction healing rate were: chemotherapy; type of allograft host bone contact; quality of host graft junction; and, in intercalary allografts, use of the osteosynthesis device. No difference was observed between control and active groups for patient survival or number of local or distal tumor recurrences.",
author = "R. Capanna and D. Donati and C. Masetti and M. Manfrini and Panozzo, {Albert A.} and R. Cadossi and M. Campanacci",
year = "1994",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "213--221",
journal = "Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research",
issn = "0009-921X",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "306",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of electromagnetic fields on patients undergoing massive bone graft following bone tumor resection

T2 - A double blind study

AU - Capanna, R.

AU - Donati, D.

AU - Masetti, C.

AU - Manfrini, M.

AU - Panozzo, Albert A.

AU - Cadossi, R.

AU - Campanacci, M.

PY - 1994

Y1 - 1994

N2 - Massive bone allograft after tumor resection has been used for over 20 years. Many factors negatively influence the healing of the junction between the allograft and the host bone, resulting in a low healing rate and lengthy time to union. This study evaluated whether pulsing electromagnetic field stimulation could be advantageously used in these patients. A double blind prospective randomized study was designed. Eighty three host graft junctions in 47 patients were considered. The overall host graft junction healing rate was the same (67%) in both control and active stimulated patients. Although not statistically significant, a positive effect of pulsing electromagnetic fields was observed for those host graft junctions with a cortico-cortical contact between allograft and host bone. When adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy was not employed, a definite effect of pulsing electromagnetic field stimulation was observed: the healing time decreased from 9.4 months in the control group to 6.7 months in the active stimulated group (p < 0.001). This effect would have been lost if chemotherapy was employed. There was also no advantage in supplement with iliac crest autografts at the host graft junction site if chemotherapy was used. Factors that significantly influenced the host graft junction healing rate were: chemotherapy; type of allograft host bone contact; quality of host graft junction; and, in intercalary allografts, use of the osteosynthesis device. No difference was observed between control and active groups for patient survival or number of local or distal tumor recurrences.

AB - Massive bone allograft after tumor resection has been used for over 20 years. Many factors negatively influence the healing of the junction between the allograft and the host bone, resulting in a low healing rate and lengthy time to union. This study evaluated whether pulsing electromagnetic field stimulation could be advantageously used in these patients. A double blind prospective randomized study was designed. Eighty three host graft junctions in 47 patients were considered. The overall host graft junction healing rate was the same (67%) in both control and active stimulated patients. Although not statistically significant, a positive effect of pulsing electromagnetic fields was observed for those host graft junctions with a cortico-cortical contact between allograft and host bone. When adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy was not employed, a definite effect of pulsing electromagnetic field stimulation was observed: the healing time decreased from 9.4 months in the control group to 6.7 months in the active stimulated group (p < 0.001). This effect would have been lost if chemotherapy was employed. There was also no advantage in supplement with iliac crest autografts at the host graft junction site if chemotherapy was used. Factors that significantly influenced the host graft junction healing rate were: chemotherapy; type of allograft host bone contact; quality of host graft junction; and, in intercalary allografts, use of the osteosynthesis device. No difference was observed between control and active groups for patient survival or number of local or distal tumor recurrences.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028028213&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028028213&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 8070199

AN - SCOPUS:0028028213

SP - 213

EP - 221

JO - Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

JF - Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

SN - 0009-921X

IS - 306

ER -