Electrical stimulators are commonly used to accelerate fracture healing, resolve nonunions or delayed unions, and to promote spinal fusion. The efficacy of electrical stimulator treatment, however, remains uncertain. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomised sham-controlled trials to establish the effectiveness of electrical stimulation for bone healing. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Central to identify all randomised sham-controlled trials evaluating electrical stimulators in patients with acute fractures, non-union, delayed union, osteotomy healing or spinal fusion, published up to February 2015. Our outcomes were radiographic nonunion, patient-reported pain and self-reported function. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias, performed data extraction, and rated overall confidence in the effect estimates according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Fifteen randomised trials met our inclusion criteria. Electrical stimulation reduced the relative risk of radiographic nonunion or persistent nonunion by 35% (95%CI 19% to 47%; 15 trials; 1247 patients; number needed to treat = 7; p < 0.01; moderate certainty). Electrical stimulation also showed a significant reduction in patient-reported pain (Mean Difference (MD) on the 100-millimeter visual analogue scale = −7.67; 95% CI −13.92 to −1.43; 4 trials; 195 patients; p = 0.02; moderate certainty). Limited functional outcome data showed no difference with electrical stimulation (MD −0.88; 95% CI −6.63 to 4.87; 2 trials; 316 patients; p = 0.76; low certainty). Patients treated with electrical stimulation as an adjunct for bone healing have a reduced risk of radiographic nonunion or persistent nonunion and less pain; functional outcome data are limited and requires increased focus in future trials.
Curative treatment of malignancies in the sacrum and lower lumbar spine frequently requires en bloc spinopelvic resection. There is no standard classification of these procedures. We present outcomes and a classification scheme with oncologic and reconstructive guidelines for spinopelvic tumors based on an analysis of 30 cases of en bloc resection and reconstruction performed with curative intent. Mean follow-up of surviving patients was 38 months. Tumors included osteosarcoma (n=9), chondrosarcoma (n=6), chordoma (n=5), other sarcomas (n=5), neurogenic tumors (n=4), and local extension of carcinoma (n=1). Resections could be divided into 4 types. Type 1 resections (n=12) included a total sacrectomy with lower lumbar spine and bilateral medial iliac resections. Type 2 resections (n=6) included hemisacrectomy, partial lumbar spine excision, and medial iliac resection. Type 3 resections (n=9) encompassed external hemipelvectomy with hemisacrectomy and partial lumbar spine excision. Type 4 resections (n=3) encompassed external hemipelvectomy, total sacrectomy, and lumbar spine excision. For each resection type, we have developed staged surgical approaches to allow resection with wide margins and reconstruction of spinopelvic continuity. Tumor free margins were achieved in all cases. Perioperative mortality was 3/30. Seven additional patients have died of disease, two died of other causes, two are alive with disease, and 16 have no evidence of disease. 13/18 surviving patients are independent in their activities of daily living. In our practice en bloc excision and reconstruction of spinopelvic neoplasms may be classified into four types. For each type, we have devised surgical treatment guidelines to allow for wide resection and reconstruction of spinopelvic continuity. Long term survival and independent function can be achieved in this challenging patient population. This represents the first standardised classification of oncologic spinopelvic resections and reconstructions.
