Speaker Credentials

OMS-II

Speaker Credentials

MS

College

Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine, DO

Medical Specialty

Neurosurgery

Format

Presentation

Start Date

November 2024

End Date

November 2024

Track

4

Abstract

Title: Use of Electrical Bone Growth Stimulators in High-Risk Patients Following Spinal Fusion Authors: Soumya Malhotra, BA., MS1 & Khavir Sharieff, DO, MBA2 1Class of 2027, Nova Southeastern University Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine, Fort Lauderdale, FL 2Assistant Professor of Surgery, Nova Southeastern University Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine, Tampa Bay, FLNova Southeastern University Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine Objective: This study aimed to elucidate the advantages of EBGSs following high-risk spinal fusions. Background: Pseudarthrosis is a condition where bones fail to fuse after an injury or surgery. It causes significant morbidity in patients with a history of smoking, diabetes, spinal surgery, failed fusions, rheumatoid arthritis, or spondylolisthesis. Electrical bone growth stimulators (EBGSs) have gained popularity in pseudarthrosis management. No reviews have been conducted evaluating pseudarthrosis prevention with EBGS use following high-risk spinal fusions. Methods: A systematic search was performed in September 2024 across PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE using PRISMA guidelines. Keywords included “bone growth stimulators”,” spinal fusions,” ” pseudarthrosis,” among others. Only studies in English reporting EBGS use following high-risk spinal fusion were included. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Results: 269 articles reported using EBGSs in spinal fusions, ten studies met the criteria (7 RTCs, 1 non-RTC, and 2 case-controlled). Eight used direct current EBGSs, and two reported pulsed EBGSs. 736 EBGS-treated patients were identified with an 18.18 month (SD +/- 12.14) mean follow-up. The average fusion rate was 81.8% (SD+/- 19.99). Objective pain assessment (0-60 pain index) showed 12% or higher pain relief with measurable functional improvements such as distance walking, return to daily work, and social living. Conclusion: This study highlights EBGSs as a viable option in preventing pseudarthrosis following high-risk spinal fusion surgery. However, the variability in study design warrants further research to assess the advantages of EBGSs post-spinal fusion. Grants: This study was not funded by any sponsor/funder.

Share

COinS
 
Nov 13th, 9:40 AM Nov 13th, 9:48 AM

Use of Electrical Bone Growth Stimulators in High-Risk Patients Following Spinal Fusion

Title: Use of Electrical Bone Growth Stimulators in High-Risk Patients Following Spinal Fusion Authors: Soumya Malhotra, BA., MS1 & Khavir Sharieff, DO, MBA2 1Class of 2027, Nova Southeastern University Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine, Fort Lauderdale, FL 2Assistant Professor of Surgery, Nova Southeastern University Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine, Tampa Bay, FLNova Southeastern University Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine Objective: This study aimed to elucidate the advantages of EBGSs following high-risk spinal fusions. Background: Pseudarthrosis is a condition where bones fail to fuse after an injury or surgery. It causes significant morbidity in patients with a history of smoking, diabetes, spinal surgery, failed fusions, rheumatoid arthritis, or spondylolisthesis. Electrical bone growth stimulators (EBGSs) have gained popularity in pseudarthrosis management. No reviews have been conducted evaluating pseudarthrosis prevention with EBGS use following high-risk spinal fusions. Methods: A systematic search was performed in September 2024 across PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE using PRISMA guidelines. Keywords included “bone growth stimulators”,” spinal fusions,” ” pseudarthrosis,” among others. Only studies in English reporting EBGS use following high-risk spinal fusion were included. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Results: 269 articles reported using EBGSs in spinal fusions, ten studies met the criteria (7 RTCs, 1 non-RTC, and 2 case-controlled). Eight used direct current EBGSs, and two reported pulsed EBGSs. 736 EBGS-treated patients were identified with an 18.18 month (SD +/- 12.14) mean follow-up. The average fusion rate was 81.8% (SD+/- 19.99). Objective pain assessment (0-60 pain index) showed 12% or higher pain relief with measurable functional improvements such as distance walking, return to daily work, and social living. Conclusion: This study highlights EBGSs as a viable option in preventing pseudarthrosis following high-risk spinal fusion surgery. However, the variability in study design warrants further research to assess the advantages of EBGSs post-spinal fusion. Grants: This study was not funded by any sponsor/funder.