Background and Objectives

Triangular fibrocartilaginous complex (TFCC) tears are common sources of ulna sided wrist pain and resultant functional disability. Diagnosis is based on history, clinical examination and radiological evidence of a TFCC central perforation or radial/ulna tear. The purpose of this study is therefore to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Magnetic Resonance Arthrography (MRA) in the detection of TFCC injury in the adult population.

Purpose: A lack of consensus regarding the radiologic criteria to diagnose spinal non-union limits inferences from clinical research. This systematic review aimed to examine the spectrum of radiologic investigations used to assess lumbar spinal fusion and the definitions of successful spine union used in the spine literature.

Method: We comprehensively searched three electronic databases from 1950 to 2009 (MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) for clinical studies involving posterolateral fusion of the lumbar spine. English-language studies including adult patients and reporting a definition of successful fusion were included. Studies examining the reliability and validity of radiologic investigations were also identified. Key measures included

radiologic investigations,

Results: Among 1165 potentially eligible studies, 91 met our inclusion criteria. Of the studies 78% (n = 71) used plain radiographs to diagnose non-union, 4% (n = 4) used CT scans and 18% (n = 16) used both. Fifty-one studies used both static (xray or CT) and dynamic (flexion-extension xray) images, 35 used only static images and five used only dynamic radiographs. In total, we identified fifty-two different radiographic definitions of successful fusion. More than half of the studies (n = 50, 55%) failed to provide a reference for the definition used. The most common definition of fusion (7 studies) used static radiographs and defined fusion as continuous intertransverse bony bridging with this quality of fusion at all intended levels. Seven studies evaluated reliability of xray criteria but no studies provided complete validation of the definitions. Only 3 studies provided some validation and reliability estimates of thin-slice CT scanning in diagnosing spinal non-union. Significant variability in reliability, sensitivity and specificity exists for all radiologic investigations in the diagnosis of spinal non-union.

Conclusion: The radiologic investigations and definitions of successful posterolateral fusion used in the spine literature vary substantially. Choice of radiologic criteria should be based upon reliability and validity testing. Studies using fusion criteria that have not been shown to be reliable or valid should be interpreted with caution.

Purpose: A significant proportion of spine fusion operations may result in a non-union. Electromagnetic stimulation is a non-invasive method used to promote spine fusion although the efficacy of its use in this regard remains uncertain. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effect of electromagnetic stimulation on spine fusion.

Method: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched from database inception to July 2009 for randomized controlled trials of electrical stimulation and spinal fusion. In addition, we performed a hand search of four relevant journals from January 2000 to July 2009, the on-line proceedings of the North American Spine Society Annual Meeting from 2002 to 2008 and bibliographies of eligible trials. Trials randomizing adult patients undergoing any type of spine fusion to active treatment with direct current, capacitance coupled or pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation or placebo and reporting on fusion rates were included. Two independent reviewers extracted data regarding clinical outcomes, stimulation device, treatment regimen and methodologic quality.

Results: Of 1650 studies identified seven met the inclusion criteria. Electromagnetic stimulation in lumbar spine fusion was evaluated in five studies and two addressed cervical spine fusions. The use of electromagnetic stimulation in lumbar spine fusion resulted in a significant decrease in the risk of non-union (relative risk 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 0.93, p = 0.02, I2 = 57%). The observed reduction in risk of nonunion with electromagnetic stimulation was not affected by smoking or the number of levels fused. Due to limited and conflicting trials, similar effects were not observed in the two studies evaluating cervical spine fusion rates (relative risk 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 2.53, p = 0.77, I2 = 56%).

Conclusion: Pooled analysis shows a 40% reduction in the risk of non-union of lumbar spine fusions with the use of electromagnetic stimulation although a similar effect was not observed for fusions of the cervical spine. However, due to study heterogeneity the current indications for the use of electrical stimulation in spine fusion remain somewhat unclear.