Ultrasound and shockwave therapy for acute fractures in adults.

BACKGROUND The morbidity and socioeconomic costs of fractures are considerable. The length of time to healing is an important factor in determining a person's recovery after a fracture. Ultrasound may have a therapeutic role in reducing the time to union after fracture by stimulating osteoblasts and other bone-forming proteins. This is an update of a review previously published in February 2014.   OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of low-intensity ultrasound (LIPUS), high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFUS) and extracorporeal shockwave therapies (ECSW) as part of the treatment of acute fractures in adults.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase (1980 to March 2022), Orthopaedic Proceedings, trial registers and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs including participants over 18 years of age with acute fractures (complete or stress fractures) treated with either LIPUS, HIFUS or ECSW versus a control or placebo-control. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We collected data for the following critical outcomes: participant-reported quality of life, quantitative functional improvement, time to return to normal activities, time to fracture union, pain, delayed or non-union of fracture. We also collected data for treatment-related adverse events. We collected data in the short term (up to three months after surgery) and in the medium term (later than three months after surgery).   MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies, involving 1543 fractures in 1517 participants; two studies were quasi-RCTs. Twenty studies tested LIPUS and one trial tested ECSW; no studies tested HIFUS. Four studies did not report any of the critical outcomes. All studies had unclear or high risk of bias in at least one domain. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded for imprecision, risk of bias and inconsistency. LIPUS versus control (20 studies, 1459 participants) We found very low-certainty evidence for the effect of LIPUS on Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured by SF-36 at up to one year after surgery for lower limb fractures (mean difference (MD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.85 to 3.97, favours LIPUS; 3 studies, 393 participants). This result was compatible with a clinically important difference of 3 units with both LIPUS or control. There may be little to no difference in time to return to work after people had complete fractures of the upper or lower limbs (MD 1.96 days, 95% CI -2.13 to 6.04, favours control; 2 studies, 370 participants; low-certainty evidence).  There is probably little or no difference in delayed union or non-union up to 12 months after surgery (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.09, favours control; 7 studies, 746 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Although data for delayed and non-union included both upper and lower limbs, we noted that there were no incidences of delayed or non-union in upper limb fractures. We did not pool data for time to fracture union (11 studies, 887 participants; very low-certainty evidence) because of substantial statistical heterogeneity which we could not explain. In upper limb fractures, MDs ranged from 0.32 to 40 fewer days to fracture union with LIPUS. In lower limb fractures, MDs ranged from 88 fewer days to 30 more days to fracture union. We also did not pool data for pain experienced at one month after surgery in people with upper limb fractures (2 studies, 148 participants; very low-certainty evidence) because of substantial unexplained statistical heterogeneity. Using a 10-point visual analogue scale, one study reported less pain with LIPUS (MD -1.7, 95% CI -3.03 to -0.37; 47 participants), and the effect was less precise in the other study (MD -0.4, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.53; 101 participants). We found little or no difference in skin irritation (a possible treatment-related adverse event) between groups but judged the certainty of the evidence from this small study to be very low (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.65; 1 study, 101 participants). No studies reported data for functional recovery. Data for treatment adherence were inconsistently reported across studies, but was generally described to be good. Data for costs were reported for one study, with higher direct costs, as well as combined direct and indirect costs, for LIPUS use. ECSW versus control (1 study, 56 participants) We are uncertain whether ECSW reduces pain at 12 months after surgery in fractures of the lower limb (MD -0.62, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.27, favours ECSW); the difference between pain scores was unlikely to be clinically important, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. We are also uncertain of the effect of ECSW on delayed or non-union at 12 months because the certainty of this evidence is very low (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.01; 1 study, 57 participants). There were no treatment-related adverse events. This study reported no data for HRQoL, functional recovery, time to return to normal activities, or time to fracture union. In addition, no data were available for adherence or cost. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We were uncertain of the effectiveness of ultrasound and shock wave therapy for acute fractures in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS), for which few studies reported data. It is probable that LIPUS makes little or no difference to delayed union or non-union. Future trials should be double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials recording validated PROMs and following up all trial participants. Whilst time to union is difficult to measure, the proportion of participants achieving clinical and radiographic union at each follow-up point should be ascertained, alongside adherence with the study protocol and cost of treatment in order to better inform clinical practice.

[1]  K. Takeshita,et al.  Younger age is a significant factor for poorer adherence in fracture patients who received low-intensity pulsed ultrasound: A retrospective study. , 2021, Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

[2]  K. Raum,et al.  Pulsed ultrasound for bone regeneration - outcomes and hurdles in the clinical application: a systematic review. , 2021, European cells & materials.

[3]  V. Alt,et al.  Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) for stimulation of bone healing - A narrative review. , 2021, Injury.

[4]  Dean Wang,et al.  Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound augments tendon, ligament, and bone-soft tissue healing in preclinical animal models: A systematic review. , 2021, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[5]  E. Panneerselvam,et al.  Evaluation of Efficacy of Low Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound in Facilitating Mandibular Fracture Healing-A Blinded Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. , 2020, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[6]  B. Clavo,et al.  Pulsed Ultrasounds Reduce Pain and Disability, Increasing Rib Fracture Healing, in a Randomized Controlled Trial. , 2018, Pain medicine.

[7]  A. Copay,et al.  Minimum Clinically Important Difference: Current Trends in the Orthopaedic Literature, Part I Upper Extremity A Systematic Review , 2018, JBJS reviews.

[8]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound for treatment of tibial fractures: AN ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE TRUST STUDY , 2017, The bone & joint journal.

[9]  P. Tang,et al.  The effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound on fresh fracture , 2017, Medicine.

[10]  A. Virdi,et al.  Comparison of effects of LLLT and LIPUS on fracture healing in animal models and patients: A systematic review. , 2017, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[11]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Low intensity pulsed ultrasound for bone healing: systematic review of randomized controlled trials , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[12]  Thomas Agoritsas,et al.  Low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) for bone healing: a clinical practice guideline , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[13]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Re-evaluation of low intensity pulsed ultrasound in treatment of tibial fractures (TRUST): randomized clinical trial , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[14]  I. Sierevelt,et al.  Enhancement of Bone‐Healing by Low‐Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound: A Systematic Review , 2016, JBJS reviews.

[15]  Sanjeev Kumar,et al.  An Evaluation of the Effect of Therapeutic Ultrasound on Healing of Mandibular Fracture , 2015, Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction.

[16]  J. Kamath,et al.  The effect of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound therapy on fracture healing , 2015 .

[17]  K. Graham,et al.  Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound in Lower Limb Bone Stress Injuries: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2014, Clinical journal of sport medicine : official journal of the Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine.

[18]  Y. Kuang,et al.  Ultrasound treatment for accelerating fracture healing of the distal radius. A control study. , 2014, Acta cirurgica brasileira.

[19]  Matthew L. Costa,et al.  Ultrasound and shockwave therapy for acute fractures in adults. , 2014, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[20]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Trial to re-evaluate ultrasound in the treatment of tibial fractures (TRUST): a multicenter randomized pilot study , 2014, Trials.

[21]  M. Poeze,et al.  The effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound and pulsed electromagnetic fields bone growth stimulation in acute fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials , 2014, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[22]  M. Bhandari,et al.  Low-intensity pulsed ultrasonography versus electrical stimulation for fracture healing: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. , 2014, Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie.

[23]  A. Simpson,et al.  The relative incidence of fracture non-union in the Scottish population (5.17 million): a 5-year epidemiological study , 2013, BMJ Open.

[24]  J. Macdermid,et al.  Effects of Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Therapy on Fracture Healing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2012, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[25]  X. Griffin,et al.  Ultrasound and shockwave therapy for acute fractures in adults. , 2010, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[26]  R. Tashjian,et al.  Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for visual analog scales (VAS) measuring pain in patients treated for rotator cuff disease. , 2009, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[27]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[28]  G. Victoria,et al.  Bone stimulation for fracture healing: What's all the fuss? , 2009, Indian journal of orthopaedics.

[29]  N. Suzuki,et al.  Daily low-intensity pulsed ultrasound stimulates production of bone morphogenetic protein in ROS 17/2.8 cells. , 2009, Journal of oral science.

[30]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Low intensity pulsed ultrasonography for fractures: systematic review of randomised controlled trials , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[31]  C. van der Werken,et al.  Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) in fresh clavicle fractures: a multi-centre double blind randomised controlled trial. , 2008, Injury.

[32]  A. Banerjee,et al.  Role of Ultrasound Therapy in the Healing of Tibial Stress Fractures. , 2008, Medical journal, Armed Forces India.

[33]  G. Guyatt,et al.  GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[34]  D. Moher,et al.  Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. , 2008, Annals of internal medicine.

[35]  Ching‐Jen Wang,et al.  The effects of extracorporeal shockwave on acute high-energy long bone fractures of the lower extremity , 2007, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[36]  L. Handolin,et al.  No Long-Term Effects of Ultrasound Therapy on Bioabsorbable Screw-Fixed Lateral Malleolar Fracture , 2005, Scandinavian journal of surgery : SJS : official organ for the Finnish Surgical Society and the Scandinavian Surgical Society.

[37]  L. Handolin,et al.  Effect of ultrasound therapy on bone healing of lateral malleolar fractures of the ankle joint fixed with bioabsorbable screws , 2005, Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

[38]  L. Handolin,et al.  The effect of low intensity ultrasound and bioabsorbable self-reinforced poly-L-lactide screw fixation on bone in lateral malleolar fractures , 2005, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[39]  F. Frassica,et al.  The effect of pulsed ultrasound in the treatment of tibial stress fractures. , 2004, Orthopedics.

[40]  Kwok-Sui Leung,et al.  Complex tibial fracture outcomes following treatment with low-intensity pulsed ultrasound. , 2004, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[41]  Deborah McK Ciombor,et al.  Treatment of nonunions with electric and electromagnetic fields. , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[42]  D. Feeny,et al.  The Health Utilities Index (HUI®): concepts, measurement properties and applications , 2003, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[43]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[44]  E. Mayr,et al.  [Does low intensity, pulsed ultrasound speed healing of scaphoid fractures?]. , 2000, Handchirurgie, Mikrochirurgie, plastische Chirurgie : Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Handchirurgie : Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Mikrochirurgie der Peripheren Nerven und Gefasse : Organ der V....

[45]  B. Borchard,et al.  Accelerated healing of scaphoid fractures-A randomized study , 1999 .

[46]  J. Ryaby,et al.  Treatment of Jones' fractures of the foot with adjunctive use of low-pulsed ultrasound stimulation , 1999 .

[47]  A. Emami,et al.  No effect of low-intensity ultrasound on healing time of intramedullary fixed tibial fractures. , 1999, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[48]  C. Rubin,et al.  Enhancement of fracture healing by low intensity ultrasound. , 1998, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[49]  J. Ryaby,et al.  Accelerated Healing of Distal Radial Fractures with the Use of Specific, Low-Intensity Ultrasound. A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study* , 1997, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[50]  S. Cook,et al.  Acceleration of Tibia and Distal Radius Fracture Healing in Patients Who Smoke , 1997, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[51]  T A Einhorn,et al.  Enhancement of fracture-healing. , 1995, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[52]  E. Chao,et al.  Low intensity ultrasound treatment increases strength in a rat femoral fracture model , 1994, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[53]  C. Sherbourne,et al.  The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. , 1994 .

[54]  T. Kristiansen The Effect of Low Power Specifically Programmed Ultrasound on the Healing Time of Fresh Fractures Using a Collesʼ Model , 1990 .

[55]  W. Harvey,et al.  The stimulation of bone formation in vitro by therapeutic ultrasound. , 1997, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[56]  R F Kilcoyne,et al.  Acceleration of tibial fracture-healing by non-invasive, low-intensity pulsed ultrasound. , 1994, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.