Me: As a continuation of the study where we looked at the effects of using ESWT on distraction osteogenesis, I found a related article looking at the same process using the LIPUS technology.
Analysis: Remember, the LIPUS technology is very similar to the ESWT technology. They both use soundwaves, but one just has lower intensity and the other has higher intensity waves. What we seem to see is that just like the ESW, but an even lesser effect, the LIPUS technology does nothing to help decrease the healing time when a distraction is done. The researchers wanted to see what would be the effect on regenerated bone formation.
The results showed NO change in callus size, callus mineralization, strucutral stiffness, or material strength. I personally think the biggest take-away from this study is the last sentence in the abstract…”Our data do not support the application of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound to regenerated bone during distraction osteogenesis.”
Implications: This makes me question and argue against the application of using the LIPUS technology for possible height increase application. When the last two posts and PubMed studies are compared, we see that the ESWT technology compared to the LIPUS technology had at least a slightly bigger effect in callus mineralization and bone mineral density.
From PubMed study link HERE…
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007 Jun;459:237-45.
Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound does not enhance distraction callus in a rabbit model.
Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC 20307, USA.
Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound has been reported to have a positive effect when applied during the consolidation phase of distraction osteogenesis and bone transportation, but the optimal application time has not been determined. We used a rabbit model to determine whether low-intensity pulsed ultrasound applied during the distraction and early consolidation phases of tibial lengthening would have a positive effect on regenerated bone formation. Radiographic analysis showed no differences in regenerated callus area or in percent of callus mineralization between treated and control tibias immediately after distraction or at 1, 2, or 3 weeks after distraction. Similarly, we observed no differences in structural stiffness or maximal torque to failure at 1.5 or 3 weeks after distraction. We detected no differences in bone mineral appositional rates or percent tissue composition measured histologically between groups. Our data do not support the application of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound to regenerated bone during distraction osteogenesis.
- PMID: 17545764 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]