Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Feb 22;356:j656.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.j656.

Low Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound for Bone Healing: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Review

Low Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound for Bone Healing: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Stefan Schandelmaier et al. BMJ. .
Free PMC article

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.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare that JWB, DHA, and GHG were co-authors of the TRUST trial, which was supported in part by an industry grant from Smith & Nephew, a manufacturer of LIPUS devices.

Figures

None
Fig 1 Studies included in review of low intensity pulsed ultrasound compared with control (sham device or no device) for patients with fracture or osteotomy
None
Fig 2 Difference in days to return to work after fracture treated with low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) compared with control (sham device or no device)
None
Fig 3 Difference of days to full weight bearing after fracture treated with low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) compared with control (sham device or no device), by risk of bias. Interaction P<0.001
None
Fig 4 Mean difference of pain reduction after fracture treated with low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) compared with control (sham device or no device) by risk of bias. All instruments transformed to 0-100 visual analogue scale. Interaction P<0.001
None
Fig 5 Risk ratio of number of subsequent operations related to fracture after fracture treated with low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) compared with control (sham device or no device)
None
Fig 6 Percentage difference in days to radiographic healing after fracture treated with low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) compared with control (sham device or no device), by risk of bias. Interaction P<0.001
None
Fig 7 Risk difference in adverse effects related to ultrasound device after fracture treated with low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) compared with control (sham device or no device)

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 9 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound to promote fracture healing. 2010. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg374/history.
    1. Food and Drug Administration. Approval order for Exogen device. 2000, http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/00/mar00/031300/aav0001.pdf.
    1. Busse JW, Morton E, Lacchetti C, Guyatt GH, Bhandari M. Current management of tibial shaft fractures: a survey of 450 Canadian orthopedic trauma surgeons. Acta Orthop 2008;79:689-94. 10.1080/17453670810016722 pmid:18839377. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wachovia Capital Markets. Equity research: bone growth stimulation 2008 outlook. 2007.
    1. Griffin XL, Parsons N, Costa ML, Metcalfe D. Ultrasound and shockwave therapy for acute fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;(6):CD008579.pmid:24956457. - PMC - PubMed
Feedback