Introduction. Non-union is an unfortunate outcome of the fracture healing process for some patients; with an estimated annual incidence of 17.4- 18.9 per 100,00. The management of these patients depicts a significant clinical challenge for surgeons and financial burden to health services. External ultrasound stimulation devices (Exogen. TM. ) have been highlighted as a novel non invasive therapy to achieve union in cases of delayed and non-union. The aim of the current study was to assess the rate of union in patients using Exogen. TM. therapy for delayed fracture union in a district general hospital. Materials & Methods. This is a single centre retrospective continuous cohort study. Patients were identified from a prospective database of all patients prescribed Exogen. TM. therapy between June 2013- September 2021 in a district general hospital. Patient data was collected retrospectively using electronic patient records. Fracture union was assessed both clinically and radiographically and recorded in patient records. Failure of treatment was defined as progression to operative treatment due to lack of progression with ultrasound therapy or established asymptomatic non-union. Patient were excluded from the study if Exogen. TM. therapy was prescribed within 6 weeks of injury. Results. 142 potential patient were identified from the database. 35 patients were excluded from the data set (17 patients due to insufficient data available, 9 lost to follow up, 4 died and 5 excluded due to early application of Exogen. TM. therapy). 58 Patients progressed to union with an average time to union of 41 weeks. 49 cases failed to progress to union, of which 7 cases had conversion to operative management prior to completion of single course of Exogen. TM. therapy and were excluded from all other data review. 12% of cases that failed to unite with ultrasound therapy required multiple operations to establish union. Conclusions. A union rate of 58% was reported by the current study, which is lower than previously published. This likely reflects the heterogenous nature of the patient population and fracture distribution included. However, this is potentially a more reflective union rate for the general population than previously published. There were no adverse events associated with the use of Exogen. TM. therapy in the current study. Therefore supporting its use as a first line management to promote union in delayed fracture union in the general population. Additionally, failure to achieve fracture union with utilisation of Exogen. TM. therapy was associated with risk for requirement of multiple surgeries to achieve union. This could serve as an indicator for surgeon to consider the requirement additional measures at the initial surgical procedure

This study reviewed all patients who received an EXOGEN Express bone stimulating device (BSD) to treat delayed union / non-union following operative treatment for a long bone fracture & evaluate if our results are comparable with the NICE guideline expectations. A retrospective review of records between December 2004 & January 2013 revealed 113 patients treated with a BSD. A total of 59 patients were eligible for analysis, (operative treatment for a long bone fracture with adjuvant EXOGEN BSD for non-union or delayed union). Twenty-one were open fractures. The BSD was applied at a mean of 264 days post-operatively. Thirty-five patients went on to have a 2nd operation before union was achieved. Forty-two patients went on to union following application of the BSD. Mean time to union was 293 days. Seventeen patients failed to unite by the end of the study. There were no adverse reactions to the EXOGEN BSD in this cohort. This study has shown that the use of an EXOGEN BSD is a safe, non-invasive method to successfully treat long bone non-unions following initial operative surgery, with potential cost savings (a potential saving of £48,888 to the hospital according to NICE estimations) compared to the standard re-operative management

Percutaneous grafting of non-union using bone marrow concentrates has shown promising results, we present our experience and outcomes following the use of microdrilling and marrowstim in long bone non-unions. We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing a marrowstim procedure for non-union in 2011–12. Casenotes and radiographs were reviewed for all. Details of injury, previous surgery and non-union interventions together with additional procedures performed after marrowstim were recorded for all patients. The time to clinical and radiological union were noted. We identified 32 patients, in sixteen the tibia was involved in 15 the femur and in one the humerus. Ten of the 32 had undergone intervention for non-union prior to marrowstim including 4 exchange nailings, 2 nail dynamisations, 3 caption graftings, 2 compression in circular frame and 1 revision of internal fixation. Three underwent adjunctive procedures at the time of marroswstim. In 18 further procedures were required following marrowstim. In 4 this involved frame adjustment, 5 underwent exchange nailing, 4 revision internal fixation, 2 additional marrowstim, 2 autologous bone grafting and 3 a course of exogen treatment. In total 27 achieved radiological and clinical union at a mean of 9.6 months, of these ten achieved union without requiring additional intervention following marrowstim, at a mean of 5.4 months. There were no complications relating to marrowstim harvest or application. Marrowstim appears to be a safe and relatively cheap addition to the armamentarium for treatment of non-union. However many patients require further procedures in addition to marrowstim to achieve union. Furthermore given the range of procedures this cohort of patients have undergone before and after marrowstim intervention it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding it efficacy