The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2008;90:138-144.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.01218
© 2008 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Rights and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Khan, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Laurencin, C. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Khan, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Laurencin, C. T.
Related Collections
Right arrow Clinical Article
Right arrow Basic Science
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Fracture Repair with Ultrasound: Clinical and Cell-Based Evaluation

Yusuf Khan, PhD and Cato T. Laurencin, MD, PhD

Corresponding author:
Yusuf Khan, PhD
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Hospital Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22908.
E-mail address: yk4t{at}virginia.edu

Disclosure: The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for or preparation of this work. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.

Fracture repair continues to be widely investigated, both within the clinical realm and at the fundamental research level, in part due to the fact that 5% to 10% of fractures result in either delayed union or nonunion, depending on the duration of incomplete healing. Beyond the temporal delay in repair, nonunions share the same unifying characteristic: all periosteal and endosteal repair processes have stopped and the fracture will not heal without surgical intervention. A less-invasive alternative method—low-intensity pulsed ultrasound—has shown promise as a treatment for delayed unions and nonunions and as a method to facilitate distraction osteogenesis. In this paper, we summarize the clinical effectiveness of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound with regard to fracture repair, treatment of nonunion, and distraction osteogenesis and we discuss the results of a multitude of published studies that have sought to elucidate the mechanisms behind that effectiveness through research on low-intensity pulsed ultrasound exposure on osteoblasts and osteoblast precursors. When evaluated clinically, low-intensity pulsed ultrasound was shown to enhance bone repair (most commonly noted as a decrease in healing time), although variations in patient population hindered a definitive claim to clinical effectiveness. In vitro cellular evaluation and in vivo studies on animal models have revealed an increase in cell proliferation, protein synthesis, collagen synthesis, membrane permeability, integrin expression, and increased cytosolic Ca2+ levels as well as other increased indicators of bone repair in response to low-intensity pulsed ultrasound exposure. Many of the cellular responses to low-intensity pulsed ultrasound mirror the cellular responses to fluid-induced shear flow, suggesting a link between the two as one potential mechanism of action. The considerable amount of information that has been revealed about the behavior of osteoblasts under low-intensity pulsed ultrasound exposure suggests that the exact mechanism of action is complex. It is clear, however, that considerable progress is being made toward uncovering these mechanisms, which has served to encourage the use of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound in new applications. It is posited that successful noninvasive treatment strategies such as low-intensity pulsed ultrasound may be combined with other conventional and novel tissue-regeneration strategies to develop new treatments for large-scale bone defects.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
P. F. O'Loughlin, B. E. Heyworth, and J. G. Kennedy
Current Concepts in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteochondral Lesions of the Ankle
Am. J. Sports Med., February 1, 2010; 38(2): 392 - 404.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ICVTSHome page
I. P.S. Gill, R. J. Montgomery, and J. Wallis
Successful treatment of sternal non-union by ultrasound
Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, September 1, 2009; 9(3): 389 - 390.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
J. W Busse, J. Kaur, B. Mollon, M. Bhandari, P. Tornetta third, H. J Schunemann, and G. H Guyatt
Low intensity pulsed ultrasonography for fractures: systematic review of randomised controlled trials
BMJ, February 27, 2009; 338(feb27_1): b351 - b351.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]