It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Background
Capacitively coupling electric fields (CCEF) is a method of non-invasive biophysical stimulation that enhances fracture repair and spinal fusion. This multicentre randomized controlled trial aimed to further examine the roles of CCEF in (1) the resolution of vertebral bone marrow oedema (VBME) using a follow-up MRI study and (2) pain relief, analgesic drug consumption and quality of life improvement in stimulated patients who were referred with acute vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs) compared to non-stimulated patients.
Methods
Between September 2016 and December 2019, patients who were referred to the spine centres that participated in this multicentre randomized clinical study with acute VFFs of type OF1 or OF2 were included in the present study. All the VFFs were conservatively managed according to Good Clinical Practice. Moreover, the patients were randomized into two groups: the CCEF group received, as an adjunct to the clinical study protocol, biophysical stimulation with a CCEF device (Osteospine, IGEA) for 8 h per day for 60 days, whereas the control group was treated according to the clinical study protocol. At baseline (T0), the 30-day follow-up (T1), the 60-day follow-up (T2), and the 6-month follow-up (T3), each patient underwent clinical evaluation using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for Pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Analgesic therapy with paracetamol 1000 mg tablets for 7 days—or longer, depending on the pain intensity—was performed; patients were required to report their paracetamol consumption on a specific sheet between study day 8 to 180 days of follow-up. MRI studies of the thoracolumbar spine were performed at 0 (T0), 30 (T1) and 60 days of follow-up (T2) using a 1.5-T MRI system in all of the centres that took part in the study. For each VBME area examined via MRI, the vertebral body geometry (i.e. anterior wall height/posterior wall height and vertebral kyphosis) were assessed.
Results
A total of 66 patients (male: 9, 13.63%; mean age: 73.15 years old) with 69 VFFs were included in the present study and randomized as follows: 33 patients were included in the control group and the remaining 33 patients were randomized into the CCEF group. In the CCEF group, good compliance with CCEF therapy was observed (adherence = 94%), and no adverse effects were recorded. In the stimulated patients, faster VBME resolution and significantly less vertebral body collapse during follow-up were observed compared to the control patients. Moreover, in the active group, faster pain reduction and improvement in the ODI mean score were observed. Stimulated patients also reported a significantly lower paracetamol consumption rate from the third follow-up after treatment until the 6-month follow-up. In terms of sex-related differences, in the CCEF group, VBME showed a faster resolution in male patients compared with females.
Conclusion
Biophysical stimulation with CCEF, as an adjunct to traditional conservative treatment, is a useful tool to hasten the VBME resolution process and prevent vertebral body deformation. These MRI findings also correlate with faster back pain resolution and quality of life improvement. From the third follow-up after treatment until the 6-month follow-up, stimulated patients reported a significantly lower paracetamol consumption than control patients, even though back pain and quality of life showed no significant differences between the two groups.
Level of evidence
II.
Trial Registration Register: ClinicalTrials.gov, number: NCT05803681.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 AOU Consorziale Policlinico di Bari, UOSD Spine Surgery, Bari, Italy (GRID:grid.488556.2)
2 IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Department of Spine Surgery, Bologna, Italy (GRID:grid.419038.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2154 6641)
3 University of Genova, Department of Integrated Surgical and Diagnostic Sciences (DISC), Genoa, Italy (GRID:grid.5606.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 2151 3065); Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy (GRID:grid.410345.7) (ISNI:0000 0004 1756 7871)
4 University of Milan Medical School, Orthopedics and Traumatology Unit, Department of Health Sciences, San Paolo University Hospital, Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale Santi Paolo e Carlo, Milan, Italy (GRID:grid.4708.b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1757 2822)
5 Policlinico Tor Vergata (PTV) Foundation, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Rome, Italy (GRID:grid.413009.f)
6 IGEA SpA, Clinical Biophysics, Carpi, Italy (GRID:grid.413009.f)
7 University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Orthopaedic and Trauma Unit, Department DiBraiN, Bari, Italy (GRID:grid.7644.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 0120 3326)