To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

The effect of pulsed/low-intensity bone growth stimulation in acute fractures

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
October 2014

The effect of pulsed/low-intensity bone growth stimulation in acute fractures

Vol: 3| Issue: 10| Number:74| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Meta-analysis/Systematic Review
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

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

Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014 Aug;134(8):1093-106

Contributing Authors:
PF Hannemann EH Mommers JP Schots PR Brink M Poeze

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

The role of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) and low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) on healing in acute ankle fractures has been the subject of various studies. Thirteen randomized controlled trials with a total of 355 participants treated with (PEMF) (n=146) or low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) (n=209) bone growth stimulation and 382 participants treated with a placebo device were ...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue