Abstract
Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) is a developing technology, which has been proven to improve fracture healing process with minimal thermal effects. This noninvasive treatment accelerates bone formation through various molecular, biological, and biomechanical interactions with tissues and cells. Although LIPUS treatment has shown beneficial effects on different bone fracture locations, only very few studies have examined its effects on deeper bones. This study provides an overview on therapeutic ultrasound for fractured bones, possible mechanisms of action, clinical evidences, current limitations, and its future prospects.
Keywords: bone healing, delayed unions, fresh fractures, low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound, nonunions, ultrasound therapy
Abbreviations
- BMD
bone mineral density
- COX‐2
cyclooxygenase‐2
- FDA
Food and Drug Administration
- LIPUS
low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound
- MSC
mesenchymal stem cells
- PGE2
prostaglandin E2
- RANKL
receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa‐B ligand
- VEGF
vascular endothelial growth factor
Post‐fracture rehabilitation has been a major clinical burden worldwide, which results in limited mobility and weakened musculoskeletal function of an able body. It is considered as a complex orthopedic challenge, where insufficient and delayed treatment can cause numerous complications such as bone weakening, abnormal healing, and function losing. 1 The duration of the patient's recovery from the fracture is determined by certain factors such as the site of injury, strength of impact, types of bone involved, and biological processes. 2 , 3 A fracture or a broken bone may result in nonunion, a condition of the bone that fails to heal even after 9 months of fracture; whereas delayed unions are defined as the condition of the bone that failed to show radiographic progression between 3 and 9 months after a fracture event. 4 It is estimated that 10% of the people are facing problems related to nonunion and delayed unions in the United States alone. 5 It was estimated that nearly 4.39 million people experienced fractures due to trauma in China in 2014. 6 Even though a fractured bone can undergo self‐regeneration, there are unhealed bones, with the cause remaining unknown. 7 Many orthopedic surgeons are concerned about the fracture care of the patients. 8 Traction is the most commonly used method classically in which alignment of bone is done by stretching certain parts around the broken areas. For some cases, immobilization of fractured bone is needed, by using braces, plaster casts, and splints to stabilize the broken bone. Furthermore, surgical insertion of metal plates, rods, and screws are used to stablilize and fix the bone soon after a severe fracture. Apart from these, treatments, analgesics, and anti‐inflammatory medications are commonly used as pain relief and to suppress the inflammation caused by the injury. 9 , 10 , 11 However, the choice of the treatment procedures for the fracture healing greatly depends on many factors, including the nature of fracture, location of the bone, type of fracture, and so on. Recent developments in stimulation technologies on bone fracture healing have increased significant interests of the researchers to find an effectual way to improve the healing and to speed up the recovery. Among them, ultrasound stimulation has been found to be a safe approach to accelerate the bone fracture healing process. 12 , 13 Studies reported that ultrasound stimulation enhances bone formation by accelerating the process at the inflammatory stage 14 , 15 , 16 and subsequent phases of fracture healing. 17 , 18
Therapeutic Ultrasound for Fractured Bone
Ultrasound stimulation for the human body is safe and noninvasive. The therapeutic use of ultrasound started in the early 1930s. 19 Initially, a frequency of 800 kHz and an intensity between 4000 and 5000 mW/cm2 were used in the treatment of neuralgia, myalgia, and other diseases. The higher ultrasound intensity caused more heating in biological tissues. 19 , 20 In the 1940s, ultrasound treatment was limited to treat young bones in humans and dogs. 21 It was criticized that ultrasound treatment might induce bone damages until the discovery of Barth, 22 who reported that a low dose of ultrasound did not affect the bone or surrounding tissues. Meanwhile, other early clinical studies revealed that ultrasound stimulation with higher intensity ranging from 5000 to 25000 mW/cm2 caused complications such as necrosis, ceased bone healing and formation of fibrous tissue. 23 , 24 It was also reported that ultrasound had the ability to stimulate osteogenesis. 25 Maintz used ultrasound with low intensities ranging from 500 to 2000 mW/cm2 for treatment in limbs of rabbit and noticed the formation of new periosteal bone. 26 The first successful formation of new callus in the fracture site was noticed using continuous ultrasound stimulation with an intensity of 1500 mW/cm2. 27 In order to minimize the thermal effects on soft tissues, it was proposed to use low‐intensity and pulsed ultrasound signals for stimulation, which resulted in bone growth in tibia of rabbits with an intensity of 200 mW/cm2. 28 Later in 1983, Xavier and Duarte treated 27 nonunion cases with low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) and generated successful treatment results. 29 When the nonunions were treated for 20 minutes per day for 18 days, they showed a success rate of 70%. The efficacy of LIPUS in fracture repair process with 38% of acceleration rate in tibial fractures was further demonstrated by Heckman and colleagues in 1994 with a spatial average‐temporal average intensity of 30 mW/cm2. 30
The first commercially available LIPUS product is EXOGEN® device, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of fresh fractures in 1994. Kristiansen et al reported a shortened time to achieve bone union, acceleration of radiographic stage of healing, and a significant decrease in loss of reduction was achieved with LIPUS treatment. 31 In the year 2000, FDA approved the use of LIPUS for nonunion treatment. 32 The most commonly prescribed LIPUS bone growth stimulators are Exogen 4000+™, Exogen 3000™, Exogen 2000+™, and Exogen 2000™. 33 It was reported that LIPUS with an ultrasound intensity of 30 mW/cm2 and a dosage of 20 minutes/day could accelerate the bone maturation in distraction osteogenesis in rabbits. 34 LIPUS treatment healed 86% of cases in nonunions in an average of 22 weeks. 32 Heybeli et al used low ultrasound intensity of 11.8 mW/cm2 and demonstrated increased bone density in rat femora as well as radiographic fracture healing. 35 A further study reported by Rutten and colleagues showed LIPUS was effective in the treatment of established tibial fracture, for which they achieved 73% of overall success rate with 40% reduction in healing time. 36 The studies conducted by Gebeaur et al and Nolte et al in the treatment of nonunion fractures have achieved 85 and 86% of success rate, respectively. 32 , 37 Because of the positive reports from the above studies, the usage of LIPUS on delayed unions and nonunions was supported by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2010. 38 The most widely used LIPUS parameters for stimulation consisted of an ultrasound frequency of 1.5 MHz burst waveform with 200 μs on and 800 μs off, signal repetition of 1 kHz, a spatial average‐temporal average intensity (I SATA) of 30 mW/cm2, and a dosage of 20 minutes per day. 12 Up to now, most of the experiments reported have used EXOGEN® devices approved by FDA, though there are other systems being used, with the intensity of the pulsed wave commonly below 100 mW/cm2. 39
Role of LIPUS on Fracture Healing
LIPUS therapy has been widely accepted for enhancing endochondral bone formation. 17 , 34 It has also been demonstrated to increase the blood flow near the injured area 18 and reduce the healing time in the cases of scaphoid fractures, tibial, and distal radius fractures. 30 , 31 , 40 The therapeutic ultrasound used in LIPUS is harmless and does not require any subsequent surgeries, 41 and higher efficiency of the treatment can be achieved when it is performed in the initial stage of the fracture impact. In addition, LIPUS treatment can be used along with the metallic fixtures, without causing any adverse side effects to the tissues. 42 Apart from these, the clinical application of ultrasound therapy has been extended to healing of maxillofacial bones. 43 , 44 , 45 LIPUS has shown positive effects on patients, irrespective of age, smoking, fracture gap, and absence of fibular fracture as well as distal fracture location. 46 The acceleration of callus formation in diabetic fractures has also been reported. 47 Konno et al further reported that LIPUS increased the acceleration of callus formation in the stimulation side compared with the nonstimulation side. 16
Clinical Evidences on Fracture Healing
Effects on Fresh Fractures
Fractures less than 1 week are considered as fresh fractures. 48 It is clinically proved that LIPUS plays an important role in the fresh fracture healing with an ultrasound intensity of 30 mW/cm2. 49 Some of the studies that showed effective results using LIPUS treatment on fresh fractures are listed in Table 1.
Table 1.
Details of Studies About the Effects of LIPUS on Fresh Fractures
| Study | Location of Fracture | No of Patients (LIPUS Group) | No of Patients (Control Group) | Start of Treatment After Fracture (Days) | Treatment Time per Day (Minutes) | Treatment Period (Days) | Maximum Healing Period (Days) | Surgery or Not | Patient Follow‐up Rate | Healing Time (Days) | Major Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heckman 1994 30 | Tibial shaft | 33 | 34 | 4 ± 0.3 | 20 | 140 | 180 | No | 88% |
Active group: 96 ± 4.5 Control group: 154 ± 13.7 |
Significant decrease in healing time, weight bearing not affecting efficacy of the results, smoking patients healed in 115 ± 11.2 days, (LIPUS accelerates bone formation even in smokers), 38% clinical and radiographic acceleration |
| Kristiansen 1997 31 | Radius | 30 | 31 | 3 ± 0.4 | 20 | 70 | 128 | No | 75% |
Active group: 61 ± 3 control group: 98 ± 5 |
Significant decrease in healing time, weight bearing excluded, smoking persons healed in 48 ± 5 days, 34–39% acceleration |
| Emami 1998 50 | Tibial shaft | 15 | 17 | 4 | 20 | 75 | 361 | Yes | 100% |
Active group: 155 ± 22 Control group: 125 ± 11 |
Healing time not reduced with intramedullary rods fixed on fractures, healing time reduced in smokers up to 40–50% |
| Mayr 2000 40 | Scaphoid | 15 | 15 | 2 ± 3.5 | 20 | 42 | 43.2 ± 10.9 | No | 100% |
Active group: 43.2 ± 10.9 Control group: 62 ± 19.2 |
Decrease in healing time, 31% of acceleration of bone formation, 70% of cases healed |
| Leung 2004 51 | Tibia | 16 | 14 | N/A | 20 | 90 | 84 ± 14 | Yes | 100% |
Active group: 66 ± 15 Control group: 110 ± 21 |
Disappearance of tenderness of fracture noticed at 6.1 ± 2.1 weeks, full weight bearing at 15 weeks |
| Handolin 2005 52 | Lateral malleolus | 11 | 11 | 14 | 20 | 42 | 63 | Yes | 100% |
Active group: 84 Control group: 84 |
Bone healing was assessed using multidetector CT, no significant effect on lateral malleolar fracture healing |
| Lubbert 2008 53 | Clavicle shaft | 52 | 49 | 5 | 20 | 28 | 27 | No | 85% |
Active group: 26.77 Control group: 27.09 |
Ability to return to work in 17 days, healing time not reduced |
| Gan 2014 54 | Metatarsals, fibula, tibia | 10 | 13 | N/A | 20 | 28 | 84 | No | 100% | N/A | No significant changes in the MRI grading and bone marrow edema size measured. |
| Busse 2016 55 | Tibial shaft | 250 | 251 | N/A | 20 | 365 | N/A | Yes | 73% | N/A | 9% ability to weight bearing, reduction in healing time, fails in improving functional recovery with intramedullary nails |
LIPUS, low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound; N/A, not available or not reported.
These studies demonstrated that LIPUS could effectively reduce the healing time in fresh fractures. One factor that affects healing process is smoking habit. 31 LIPUS stimulation has shown acceleration of bone formation and reduction of healing time even in smoking persons. 30 , 31 , 50 The meta‐analysis conducted by Lou et al also suggests that LIPUS treatment has positive effects on adult fresh fractures. 49 However, some patients were reported to have adverse effects with LIPUS treatment, such as muscle cramps, swelling in the cast, and skin irritation. 30 , 53 Furthermore, some studies reported that LIPUS did not reduce the healing time and functional recovery with metallic fixations. 50 , 52 , 55 A recent review has suggested that LIPUS holds Grade B recommendation in case of fresh fracture healing. 33 Furthermore, LIPUS is more suitable for nonoperative treatments because during the operative treatments there is a higher possibility of osteonecrosis. 56 The studies listed in Table 1 show that the functional recovery of the LIPUS treatment has been sparsely studied. Future research should be focused on the treatment outcomes such as pain reduction, weight‐bearing ability, and time to return to work.
Effects on Nonunions
Nonunions are the fractures that have failed to heal even after 9 months of the fracture event and with the possibility of healing with or without treatment intervention. 4 Treatment of nonunions using internal or external fixations along with bone grafts is considered as the “gold standard.” The surgical treatments for nonunions can achieve success rates between 70 and 90%, depending on the location of the fracture and the type of treatment. 41 The success rate for nonunions when treated with LIPUS is determined by three key factors, namely age of the fracture, size of the maximum gap, and stability of the fracture site. 57 The detailed outcomes of LIPUS‐treated nonunion fractures at various bone fracture locations are shown in Table 2.
Table 2.
Details of Studies About the Effects of LIPUS on Nonunions
| Study | Fracture Location | No. of Patients | Start of Treatment After Surgery (Days) | Treatment Time per Day (Minutes) | Treatment Period (Days) | Max Healing Period (Days) | Patient Follow‐up Rate | Overall Success Rate | Major Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nolte 2002 58 | Femur, tibia, radius, scaphoid | 29 | < 90 | 20 | 119 | 154 | 93% | 91% | Healing noticed in smokers, ability to bear weight without pain |
| Gebauer 2005 37 | Femur, tibia, radius, humerus | 66 | 120 | 20 | 168 | 180 | 94% | 85% | Healing noticed in few smokers; higher success rate seen in ≤1 year of fracture time |
| Rutten 2007 36 | Tibia | 71 | 90 | 20 | 160 | 179 | 98% | 73% | Healing rate in smokers 63%, nonsmokers 84%, better healing achieved if the treatment started within 3 months |
| Jingushi 2007 59 | Humerus, radius, femur, tibia, ulna | 72 | 180 | 20 | 219 | 219 | N/A | 89.7% | Higher efficiency noticed if the treatment started within 6 months after surgery |
| Zura 2015 60 | Multiple bones | 767 | 365 | 20 | 179.5 | 179.5 ± 127.9 | 21% | 86.2% | Data from patient registry, higher success rate noticed in fractures >1 year |
| Elvey 2020 61 | Hand and wrist bones | 26 | 84 | 20 | 104 | 365 | 100% | 62% | 2 nonunion cases had second surgery after 12 months of LIPUS treatment. No significant difference found in bone union rate of LIPUS vs surgery |
LIPUS, low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound; N/A, not available or not reported.
Nolte et al reported that LIPUS treatment for established nonunions had no side effects. 58 Ultrasound helps to achieve the bone union similar to surgical means without causing any complications to patients, which is particularly crucial to the elderly patients with low healing ability. 37 It has been discovered that the efficiency of bone union using LIPUS treatment was closely related to the time duration between the most recent surgery and ultrasound treatment and it should be less than 3 months. 36 Furthermore, it is showed to be more effective in the treatment of postoperative nonunions when LIPUS therapy was started within 6 months after the surgery. 59 It was also reported that LIPUS was an effective approach for acute fractures like long bones, especially nonunions. 62 It appears that better bony union would be achieved if the treatment is started at the right time after the fracture events. In addition to timing, a recent report on established nonunions demonstrated that LIPUS treatment on bone healing also depended on factors such as fracture type and treatment approach to the injury. 63 Meanwhile, it was reported that LIPUS failed to promote the healing of nonunion fractures in the case of the fracture gap size greater than 1 cm, where the average healing time was 5.3 months, with only 20 out of 60 patients reported to have bone formation. 64 The systematic review and meta‐analysis conducted by R. Leighton et al supported the use of LIPUS treatment for nonunions as the average success rate was greater than 80%. 65 In summary, LIPUS treatment appears to be a suitable substitute for the surgical therapy in nonunions for its lower cost and fewer complications. However, there was no report that LIPUS on nonunion cases show any improvement on weight‐bearing ability, pain reduction, and time reduction in radiographic healing. Further research in this area needs to be conducted.
Effects on Delayed Unions
Delayed union can be referred to as the fractures that failed to show radiographic progression between 3 and 9 months. 66 Similar to nonunions, the treatment is mostly preferred to be started within 6 months after the most recent operation to achieve better results. 59 LIPUS effects on delayed unions are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3.
Details of Studies About the Effects of LIPUS on Delayed Unions
| Study | Fracture Location | No. of Patients | Start of Treatment After Fracture (Day) | Treatment Time per Day (Minutes) | Treatment Period (Days) | Maximum Healing Period (Days) | Patient Follow‐up Rate | Overall Success Rate | Major Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schofer 2010 67 | Tibial shaft | 51 | ≥120 | 20 | 112 | 112 | 90% | N/A | Increased BMD, reduced bone gap area |
| Rutten 2012 68 | Fibula | 20 | >180 | 20 | 150 | 365 | 100% | 65% | LIPUS decreased healing time by 29% |
| Watanabe 2013 57 | Long bones | 101 | 90 | 20 | Until healed | 180 | 100% | 74.3% | Some bones unhealed due to instability, gap size not >9 mm |
| Farkash 2015 69 | Scaphoid | 29 | >90 | 20 | 67 | 67 | N/A | 76% | Immobilization to be a major part of the treatment |
| Teoh 2018 70 | Metatarsal | 30 | 101 | 20 | 75 | 88 ± 5.9 | 100% | 90% | Three patients found with nonunion even after LIPUS treatment |
BMD, bone mineral density; LIPUS, low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound; N/A, not available or not reported.
LIPUS has been reported to improve bone mineral density (BMD), thus can be an adjuvant therapy after surgical intervention. 67 One study has reported that LIPUS could achieve 74.3% bone union without any surgical procedures. 57 It is also demonstrated that a higher healing rate could be achieved if the treatment was started immediately after the injury in delayed union fractures. LIPUS has received C grade recommendation in delayed unions. 33
Effects on Distraction Osteogenesis
Distraction osteogenesis is performed to lengthen the bones by using an external fixator. 71 This method is usually carried out to treat the deformities of long bones greater than 3–4 cm. The treatment is complicated, which involves presurgical, surgical, and postsurgical stages. Some clinical studies of LIPUS treatment on distraction osteogenesis are listed in Table 4.
Table 4.
Details of Studies About the Effects of LIPUS on Distraction Osteogenesis
| Study | Fracture Location | No. of Patients | Treatment Time per Day (Minutes) | Treatment Period (Days) | Distraction Rate (mm/Day) | Surgery or Not | Follow‐up (Year) | Major Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tsumaki 2004 72 | Tibia | 21 | 20 | 30 | 1 | Yes | N/A | Increased mineralization of callus with active group: 0.20 ± 0.12 g/cm2, and control group: 0.13 ± 0.10 g/cm2 |
| Schortinghuis 2005 73 | Mandible | 8 | 20 | 30 | 6.6 ± 1.1 | Yes | 2.6 | Mineralized tissue formed in distraction gap: 1.9 ± 1.7 mm2 |
| El‐Mowafi 2005 71 | Tibia | 20 | 20 | 30 | 1 | Yes | 1 | Chain smoker does not show improvement in success rate |
| Dudda 2011 74 | Tibia | 36 | 20 | 165.1 ± 95.7 | N/A | Yes | 0.7 | Reduced healing time, callus maturation at distraction gap: 2 cm, fixator gestation period: active group: 218.6 days, control group: 262.2 days |
| Salem 2014 75 | Tibia | 21 | 20 | 33 | 1 | Yes | N/A | Bone density: 0.49 ± 0.14 g/cm2, increased by 33% |
| Simpson 2016 76 | Tibia | 62 | 20 | 133 | 0.75 | Yes | N/A | No significant difference in time to maturation of bone or length of the distraction: active group: 101.9 days, control group: 102.7 days |
N/A, not available or not reported.
LIPUS has shown significant improvement in BMD of tibial bones and promotes bone maturation by reducing the treatment time in distraction osteogenesis. 72 , 73 Furthermore, it was also reported that LIPUS helps to accelerate callus maturation by 27% and reduced the usage time of external fixator in distraction osteogenesis. 75 However, the chain smokers treated with LIPUS after distraction osteogenesis in tibia did not attain a higher success rate. 71
Besides the human studies, Shimazaki et al investigated 70 Japanese male rabbits by performing callus distraction on right tibia. 34 Ultrasound treatment was administered 20 minutes every day to 35 rabbits whose normal distraction rate was 0.5 mm/12 hours, and the remaining were in the control group. Both the groups were subjected to mechanical testing, BMD measurement, and radiography examination, and the results showed a higher rate of callus maturation in the LIPUS group. Tis et al reported that LIPUS increased callus size with reduced fibrous tissues while the BMD remains unchanged. 77 A meta‐analysis conducted in 2016 78 concluded that LIPUS therapy was more effective in the earlier stages of distraction osteogenesis, and further efficacy of LIPUS should be confirmed with more clinical trials. The effects of LIPUS on distraction osteogenesis have been classified as Grade B recommendation. 33 Hence, LIPUS works well on distraction osteogenesis by lessening the consolidation period. The major drawback of this method is its being time consuming, as the consolidation phase in distraction osteogenesis takes up to 6 months, which leads to a prolonged treatment period, and the treatment period depends on the size of the bone defect. 78
Effects of LIPUS on Mechanical Properties of Bone
LIPUS has an influence over the mechanical ability of bone by increasing bone density. 35 Earlier studies conducted by Azuma et al demonstrated the relationship between duration and mechanical properties of rat femur. 17 The rat group was divided into three phases and treated with LIPUS for up to 25 days. The acceleration of fracture healing was noticed with no adverse effects irrespective of treatment duration. The mechanical testing demonstrated that the stiffness and torque of bone was increased in all the phases of treatment. They suggested that longer treatment could be more effective. A recent study with rat tibial metaphyseal bone showed that the stiffness of the bone increased after the LIPUS therapy for about 2 weeks. 13 In another study with a group of mice treated with LIPUS intensity of 30 mW/cm2 on the femur for 4 weeks, the femoral elastic modulus and ultimate strength were enhanced by 42 and 39%, respectively. 79 The research conducted by Lu et al on bone–tendon junction healing demonstrated that LIPUS results in higher ultimate strength, failure load, and energy at failure. 80 It has been suggested that LIPUS has influences over certain factors, including collagen cross‐linking, collagen alignment, and porosity that determine the mechanical properties of the bone. 79 LIPUS treatment on rabbit mid‐tibia that had undergone osteotomy with fixator produced significant improvement in the callus mineral density at the end of 8th week, but no significant effect on the flexural strength of the fractured bone was observed. 81 Overall, it has been demonstrated clearly that LIPUS stimulation helps in improving the mechanical properties of bone during fracture healing process.
Possible Mechanisms of LIPUS on Bone Healing
After a bone fracture occurs, it undergoes three phases of healing including the inflammatory, reparative, and remodeling phases. 82 During the inflammatory phase, blood vessels supplying the periosteum and bone are injured, and a mass of blood clot is formed near the fracture site, which is called as hematoma. The area of fracture becomes swollen and painful. Following the inflammatory phase, new blood vessel formation occurs, which is called as angiogenesis. At the reparative phase, proliferation and osteoblastic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) take place to form soft callus that eventually matures to hard callus. The last phase is the bone remodeling, where the excess callus is removed by osteoclasts to achieve the actual structure of bone (Figure 1).
Figure 1.

Summary of possible mechanism of LIPUS on bone fracture healing. When bone fracture occurs, it initially undergoes inflammatory phase (Stage 1). It is followed by reparative phase namely soft callus and hard callus formation phase (Stages 2 and 3). Finally, the bone maturation occurs in remodeling phase (Stage 4).
Extensive research studies have been conducted to demonstrate the biological effects of LIPUS on all the phases of fracture healing. It has been demonstrated by Azuma and colleagues that LIPUS has advantageous effects on all the phases of fracture healing in closed femoral fracture of rats. 17 During the inflammation and callus formation stages, ultrasound boosts the deposition of certain proteins such as collagen and aggrecan. 83 Harrison et al studied the molecular mechanism and found that LIPUS generated “nano motion” at the fracture site. 84 When the ultrasound waves are transmitted to the bone through the tissues, the cells around the fracture site convert the biomechanical stimulation into biochemical response through integrins: the molecular mediators that are highly important in sensing the mechanical signals (Figure 1). A cadaveric experiment demonstrated that bone responded to mechanical stimulation and displacement, which is called as “micro motion.” 85 Another possible biological effect of ultrasound stimulation is that it creates mechanical stress in tissues, which further promotes osteogenesis, protein synthesis, calcium uptake, and DNA synthesis in various types of cell. 86 In summary, previous studies revealed that the mechanism of LIPUS should be understood from different types of effects happened at various phases of fracture healing.
Inflammatory Response at the Early Phase
The effect of LIPUS on the inflammatory phase was investigated using mouse osteoblastic cell line by exposing it to ultrasound with an intensity of 30 mW/cm2 for 20 minutes. 87 The results were compared with control samples, and it was found that ultrasound has augmented the production of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2). A greater upregulation of cyclooxygenase‐2 (COX‐2) was also observed, which is purely responsible for the production of PGE2 by initiating the inflammatory response. These prostaglandins are produced by the osteoclastic cells, which have a large amount in bones. 88 This reaction is vital for the inflammatory phase of healing. During the inflammatory phase, certain mediators such as TGF‐b, PGE2, platelet‐derived growth factor (PDGF), basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), and interleukin‐1 (IL‐1) are released from platelets. 87 Although a few publications have shown that the expression of COX‐2 has increased more after the application of LIPUS, 89 , 90 reduced expression of COX‐2 in older mice was also noticed during ultrasound stimulation. 91 In addition, COX‐2 and prostaglandins are the key processes involved in mineralization and remodeling phases of bone healing. 62 The findings of Tang et al demonstrated that when cells cultured for 24 hours were subjected to ultrasound stimulation, the expression of integrins and COX‐2 in osteoblasts was increased. 89 Some in vitro studies have shown that PGE2 increased the synthesis of collagen in the cultured bones and further stimulated the cell proliferation of osteoblastic cells. 92 , 93 , 94 These results have shown that PGE2 is essential in the bone repair process, and it has been further reported that the production of PGE2 by ultrasound stimulation depends on exposure time. 87 Furthermore, COX‐2 upregulation was noticed after 15 minutes of LIPUS exposure and the expression reached to peak at 60 minutes and diminished after 3 hours. 87 Hence, the results of these studies lead to a conclusion that LIPUS enhances the osteoblastic activity and COX‐2 generation with inhibition of osteoclastic activity at the fracture site during the early inflammatory stage of the healing process. It is found that LIPUS induces an anti‐inflammatory response at the fracture site (Figure 1). A recent study conducted by Yang et al demonstrated LIPUS could activate anti‐inflammatory response by upregulating the anti‐inflammatory gene expression. 14 They also found that LIPUS could improve immunosuppressive cells and enhance exosome biogenesis along with docking. Moreover, it was shown that lower ultrasound intensity also promoted anti‐inflammatory effects. 95 In addition, few studies have reported that LIPUS inhibited the inflammatory factors. 96 , 97 According to the published results, we have a good understanding that LIPUS enhances inflammation; however, more research efforts are needed to understand the exact mechanism behind the anti‐inflammatory response of LIPUS.
Angiogenesis at the Fracture Site
When bone is broken, the damage of blood vessels occurs in the surrounding tissues and a group of clotted blood is formed near the fracture site, called as hematoma. During this period, the blood flow is affected and some cells die near the fracture site. In this phase, LIPUS helps to increase the formation of new blood vessels in a process, called as angiogenesis. It has been demonstrated that LIPUS promoted the expression of mRNA that is responsible for angiogenesis. 98 Angiogenesis process consists of proliferation and migration of endothelial cells (Figure 1). Metalloproteinase (MMP) is an extracellular matrix that degrades to perform angiogenesis. 99 Many growth factors are involved in the angiogenesis process such as fibroblast growth factor (FGF), bone morphogenic protein (BMP), transforming growth factor (TGF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and interleukins (IL‐8). 100 IL‐8 has been reported as an important factor to promote angiogenesis. 101 However, the major growth factor responsible for angiogenesis is VEGF. 102 VEGF is produced by osteoblasts and periosteal cells. This growth factor plays a crucial role in differentiation of osteoblasts and activation of osteoclasts. 103 A few studies have also reported the importance of LIPUS in angiogenesis process. 104 , 105 , 106 Vavva et al demonstrated that angiogenesis process depends on the ultrasound frequency by their mathematical model. 107 From all these studies, it is understood that LIPUS enhances angiogenesis process. In addition to LIPUS treatment, high‐frequency vibration treatment has also been used to increase the blood flow as well as angiogenesis process at fracture site monitored by 3D power Doppler ultrasonography in rat models. 108 , 109 In summary, previous studies have revealed that LIPUS enhances angiogenesis process by increasing the expression of angiogenic genes and that VEGF promotes new blood vessel formation at the fracture site.
Callus Formation
Callus is the hard tissue formed around the areas of the broken bone. One of the studies has noticed that MSCs are involved in callus formation. 110 The MSCs are attracted and migrate to the fracture site by certain growth factors in the inflammatory phase (Figure 1). These MSCs are differentiated into osteoblasts and chondroblasts by the activation of osteochondral progenitor cells influenced by hormones, with proteins such as PTH and BMP, respectively. Osteoblasts are the cells that produce substance for bone formation in hard callus phase, 111 and chondroblasts are the cells that produce chondrocytes in growing cartilage matrix in the soft callus phase. 112 In addition, PGE2 increases the maturation of osteoblasts by decreasing the osteoclastic activity. 113 Osteoclasts are the bone cells that resorb the bone tissue to inhibit the bone healing. 111 PTH increases the osteoblastic cells in the bone marrow. 114 An in vitro study reported the augmentation process of callus formation during ultrasound exposure. 115 The authors utilized the cultured chondrocytes to be exposed with LIPUS and found the upregulation of specific gene expression, namely aggrecan which occurs in the earlier stage of fracture healing process. A recent study has investigated the effects of callus formation using ultrasound on rat femur. 16 It was observed that callus formation was initiated during the inflammatory phase with more callus formed at the ultrasound stimulated side compared with the nonstimulated side by radiographic analysis of the same bone. This study concludes that the inflammatory phase is an important early phase for the initiation of callus formation. Effective bone union can be achieved by starting the ultrasound stimulation at the initial stage of fracture. Cheung et al demonstrated LIPUS effects on osteoporotic fractures, and their study proved that LIPUS promotes fracture healing by activating callus formation. 104 In summary, LIPUS has the ability to enhance the callus formation even in the presence of distraction osteogenesis. 116
Bone Remodeling
Callus remodeling is the resorption process induced by osteoclasts toward the end of the entire healing process (Figure 1). In this phase, woven bone is also replaced with the lamellar bone. The osteoclasts resorb the woven bone and the fracture callus is transformed into original bone shape. An in vitro study has demonstrated that LIPUS enhanced the osteoclastic resorptive activity. 117 They found that if the treatment time was longer, the resorption rate would be higher. Azuma et al studied the effects of LIPUS on the right femur of rat, which was treated with ultrasound stimulation for 20 minutes daily, and their results showed that LIPUS supported early remodeling of trabecular bone at day 17, which was earlier than the control group. 17 A study conducted on ovariectomized rat model demonstrated that LIPUS increased the rate of endochondral ossification between 4 and 8 weeks. 104 Furthermore, bone remodeling was influenced by osteoclastic and osteoblastic processes. 118 Other studies have also shown positive results on bone remodeling through LIPUS treatment. 41 , 119 , 120 Hence, it has been proven that LIPUS accelerates the formation of osteoclastic cells and promotes resorption process in bone remodeling phase.
Role of Cellular Signaling Pathways
Ultrasound stimulation enhances the cellular signaling pathways during the healing process. Integrins help to convert the mechanical stimuli into chemical stimuli. 121 It has been reported that the mechanical stimuli can be transmitted through interaction with certain protein signaling molecules. 122 This activity is promoted by a key protein named focal adhesion kinase (FAK) by phosphorylation. 83 , 89 These focal adhesions promote translocation of intracellular proteins inside the cell where integrins are present. Some evidence showed that cAMP‐protein kinase A (PKA) pathways were involved in osteoblastic activity. The enhancement of receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa‐B ligand (RANKL) mRNA expression accelerated by this pathway is done by PGE2. 84 LIPUS could increase the expression of RANKL, which led to the activation of osteoclast and chondroclast for resorption. 123 , 124 Furthermore, enhancement of osteoblastic differentiation was observed when a longer time of ultrasound stimulation was performed. 123 The signaling pathways involved in the bone formation through increasing the expression of COX‐2 include the activities of FAK, the extracellular signal‐regulated kinase (ERK), and the phosphatidylinositol 3‐kinase (PI3K), 89 which in turn promotes the cellular proliferation and differentiation (Figure 1). A study has been reported on whether mechanical stimuli are related to primary cilia through hedgehog signaling. 125 Primary cilia are the organelle in mechanical sensing cells that detect and process the molecular and mechanical signals. In this study, the authors observed that LIPUS enhanced the callus formation at the left femur of mice when treated with a frequency of 3 MHz and daily exposure of 20 minutes for 5 weeks. The findings revealed an increased osteoblastic differentiation and mineralization through hedgehog signaling pathway. It has been proved that LIPUS stimulates the osteogenic process through primary cilia of osteoblasts cells. This process plays an important role in bone remodeling. The mechanism of LIPUS on osteoclast was analyzed in an in vitro study with an average intensity of 30 mW/cm2, and it is revealed that LIPUS reduced the RANKL‐induced osteoclast gene expression via ERK, c‐Fos, and NFATc1 signaling pathways. 118 Another in vitro study demonstrated that LIPUS stimulation enhanced the stromal cell‐derived factor‐1 signaling pathway, which increased the migration of MSCs to the fracture site. In addition, Wnt signaling pathways supporting the process of cell migration, renewal of stem cells, and cell polarity could also be altered by LIPUS. 126 These pathways help in the callus formation phase in fracture healing process. Therefore, LIPUS enhances the osteogenic process by increasing the osteoblastic activity and promotes the cellular differentiation.
Current Limitations and Future Directions of Ultrasound Treatment for Fracture Healing
There are a large number of clinical trials showing positive effects of LIPUS, but still with certain limitations. A few studies reported that ultrasound does not reduce the pain caused during fracture healing process. 127 , 128 LIPUS helps to accelerate the quality of fracture union without affecting the functional recovery of the patients, such as ability to return to work 53 , 127 and weight‐bearing capacity. 51 , 129 Furthermore, it was reported that LIPUS treatment failed to reduce the incidence rate of recurrent fracture among nonunion and delayed union fracture cases. 49 Moreover, the effects of LIPUS were not noticed when they were applied over internally fixed tibial fractures. 50 This implies that ultrasound stimulation may not have a positive effect on all musculoskeletal problems. Due to the availability of commercial LIPUS devices, most of reported studies have used similar set of stimulating parameters, no matter for human, animal or even cells, hence the study of optimized LIPUS parameter sets and their effects needs to be further carried out to enhance the outcome of healing therapy. This is particularly important when LIPUS is used for different types and locations of bone fracture or nonunion. A better understanding is needed about how the changes of ultrasound frequency, intensity, signal waveform, treatment dosage, and duration, and so on would affect the outcome of LIPUS. Although most of the studies have argued on the efficiency of LIPUS, a comparison of LIPUS therapy with other available treatments is needed to investigate whether LIPUS itself is a more effective therapy or it must be used as a supportive therapy to existing fracture treatments. A meta‐analysis by Ebrahim and team in 2014 compared LIPUS with electrical stimulation for fracture healing. They reported that the benefit of LIPUS is not significant in case of fresh fractures. 130 This is because invasive treatments can provide continuous stimulation when implanted near the fracture site. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies from the literature, it is still difficult to conclude the efficiency of the LIPUS treatment. The studies differ in the protocol, stimulation parameter, treatment time, and nature of the trauma. Hence, this requires a greater number of randomized controlled trials to be conducted in humans to examine the efficiency of the LIPUS therapy. In addition, further research is still needed to investigate the mechanism underlying behind the fracture healing process with the application of LIPUS. Previous studies have demonstrated that ultrasound stimulation appears to have the effects in all the healing phases of the bone fracture; however, it is still not clear stimulation at which phase gives the best benefit for the healing.
The review of Watanabe et al demonstrated that LIPUS possesses weak evidence to treat deep bones. 46 The healing rates achieved in the past studies on deeper bones such as femur and humerus bones are 65 and 75%, respectively. 66 , 131 This may be due to various factors such as increased ultrasound attenuation, difficulties in targeting ultrasound beam, and insufficient ultrasound penetration for deeper fracture treatment using LIPUS. On the other hand, Fung et al conducted a very inspiring experiment on rat femoral fracture using LIPUS stimulation with an intensity (I SATA) of 30 mW/cm2 (measured at the rat skin surface) but arranging the ultrasound transducer at three different distances, 0, 6, and 13 cm. 132 Their results showed that LIPUS had effects for all the three distances, indicating that ultrasound can achieve treatment effects even for bone fractures located as deep as 13 cm from the transducer, given that high enough intensity of ultrasound is delivered at the fracture location. Meanwhile, this study also showed that the tissue depth affected the types of effects, with the 13‐cm group achieved significantly larger changes in BMD and stiffness at week 4, while the other two groups having significantly higher woven bone percentage. They found that patterns of intensity distribution along the cross‐section of the ultrasound beam at different distances apart from the transducer were different, and suggested that the beam intensity pattern caused the observed depth‐dependent effect. If this effect can be further verified, the intensity distribution of ultrasound beam at the location of the fracture would become another stimulation parameter that we should control and investigate in future studies, particularly when deep bone fracture is a target.
Athough there are limited reports about successful LIPUS treatment for deep bone fracture healing, the impacts of some deep bone fractures, such as hip fractures, are huge. Among elderly, hip fractures are the most common life‐threatening injury, which usually requires surgical procedures. It is estimated that hip fractures may have significantly increased across worldwide from 1.66 million now to 6.26 million by 2050. 133 The common causes for hip fractures are sudden fall, trauma, and obesity, as well as diseases like osteoporosis that reduce bone density. 134 Hip fracture healing using LIPUS therapy could be suggested mostly to the patients with chronic diseases such as cancer and diabetes, smoking persons, vascular insufficiency, or to obese patients who have a high risk of infection, and elderly persons for whom the wound healing is a very slow process. Because the aging population continuously grows all over the world, the importance of accelerating hip fracture healing becomes more obvious. Therefore, the authors of this review strongly suggest more research and development efforts should be conducted to focus on the LIPUS treatment for deep bone fracture healing, such as hip fracture, given that earlier studies have shown that LIPUS effects can be achieved for deep fracture if the intensity at the fracture location reaching 30 mW/cm2. 132 The research questions will include what frequency of ultrasound is most suitable to deliver ultrasound into deep tissues, how larger attenuation to ultrasound caused by a thicker layer of tissues can be overcome, how to make sure the ultrasound beam is properly targeted at the fracture location, how to achieve the optimized set of ultrasound stimulation parameters, what intensity distribution pattern should be used to optimize the treatment, how to fix LIPUS devices on various body surfaces, and how to harness the latest development in the field and ultrasonics and electronics for LIPUS device development. 132
Conclusions
Overall, LIPUS has shown positive results on bone fracture healing through the molecular, biological, and biomechanical changes around the fracture site. It has been proven to accelerate the bone formation in fresh fractures, delayed unions, nonunions, and distraction osteogenesis. LIPUS treatment is recommended as a safe therapy when compared to existing fracture treatments, and can be used as an adjunctive therapy to accelerate the bone healing process for fresh fractures, delayed fractures, and nonunions. However, ultrasound treatment on fractures located in deeper tissues has not been widely investigated due to some factors, including high attenuation of ultrasound beam, insufficient penetration power, and difficulty in targeting ultrasound energy at the fracture location. Given the importance of enhancing deep bone fracture healing, such as hip fracture, additional research works are suggested in the area of LIPUS for deep bone fracture, by overcoming these challenges and with the consideration of optimizing ultrasound stimulation parameters and more understanding about its mechanism.
Acknowledgements
This work was substantially supported by the Theme‐based Research Scheme of the Hong Kong Research Grants Council (Ref No. T13‐402/17‐N) and partially supported by Telefield Charitable Fund (ZH3V).
References
- 1. Marsh DR, Li G. The biology of fracture healing: optimising outcome. Br Med Bull 1999; 55:856–869. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Mirhadi S, Ashwood N, Karagkevrekis B. Factors influencing fracture healing. Trauma 2013; 15:140–155. [Google Scholar]
- 3. Einhorn TA, Gerstenfeld LC. Fracture healing: mechanisms and interventions. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2015; 11:45–54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Volpin G, Shtarker H. Management of delayed union, non‐union and mal‐union of long bone fractures. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2014; 241–266. [Google Scholar]
- 5. Ryaby JT. Clinical effects of electromagnetic and electric fields on fracture healing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; 355:S205–S215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Dare AJ, Hu G. China's evolving fracture burden. Lancet Glob Health 2017; 5:e736–e737. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Calori GM, Mazza EL, Mazzola S, et al. Non‐unions. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 2017; 14:186–188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Gellman RE. Fracture care challenges in the austere and humanitarian environments. Curr Trauma Rep 2016; 2:100–105. [Google Scholar]
- 9. Agarwal A, Agarwal R. The practice and tradition of bonesetting. Educ Health (Abingdon) 2010; 23:225. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Luisa Brandi M. Drugs for bone healing. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2012; 21:1169–1176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Panda AK, Rout S. Puttur kattu (bandage)—a traditional bone setting practice in South India. J Ayurveda Integr Med 2011; 2:174–178. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Jiang X, Savchenko O, Li Y, et al. A review of low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound for therapeutic applications. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2018; 66:2704–2718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Liu S, Zhou M, Li J, et al. Acceleration of bone defect healing and regeneration by low‐intensity ultrasound radiation force in a rat Tibial model. Ultrasound Med Biol 2018; 44:2646–2654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Yang Q, Nanayakkara GK, Drummer C, et al. Low‐intensity ultrasound‐induced anti‐inflammatory effects are mediated by several new mechanisms including gene induction, immunosuppressor cell promotion, and enhancement of exosome biogenesis and docking. Front Physiol 2017; 8:818. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. da Silva Junior EM, Mesquita‐Ferrari RA, Franca CM, et al. Modulating effect of low intensity pulsed ultrasound on the phenotype of inflammatory cells. Biomed Pharmacother 2017; 96:1147–1153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Konno M, Asano H, Fujii Y, et al. Effects of low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound on callus formation: a comparative morphological study. TWMU 2017; 87:108–116. [Google Scholar]
- 17. Azuma Y, Ito M, Harada Y, et al. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound accelerates rat femoral fracture healing by acting on the various cellular reactions in the fracture callus. J Bone Miner Res 2001; 16:671–680. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Rawool NM, Goldberg BB, Forsberg F, et al. Power Doppler assessment of vascular changes during fracture treatment with low‐intensity ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med 2003; 22:145–153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Pohlman R, Richter R, Parow E. Uber die Ausbreitung und Absorption des Ultraschalls in menschlichen Gewebe und seine therapeutische Wirkung an Ischia und Plexusneuralgie. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1939; 65:251–254. [Google Scholar]
- 20. Schortinghuis J, Stegenga B, Raghoebar GM, de Bont LG. Ultrasound stimulation of maxillofacial bone healing. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2003; 14:63–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Buchtala V. Die ultraschallwirkung auf den wachsenden knochen; ergebnisse tierexperimenteller untersuchungen an jungen hunden. Strahlentherapie 1948; 78:127–142. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Barth G, Bülow H. Zur frage der ultraschallschädigung jugendlicher knochen. Strahlentherapie 1949; 79:98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Bender LF, Janes JM, Herrick JF. Histologic studies following exposure of bone to ultrasound. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1954; 35:555–559. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Ardan JRNI, Janes JM, Herrick J. Ultrasonic energy and surgically produced defects in bone. JBJS 1957; 39:394–402. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Buchtala V. Present state of ultrasound therapy. Dia Med 1950; 22:2944–2950. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Maintz G. Animal experiments in the study of the effect of ultrasonic waves on bone regeneration. Strahlentherapie 1950; 82:631–638. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Corradi C, Cozzolino A. Azione degli ultrasuoni sulla evoluzione delle fratture sperimentali dei conigli. Minerva Ortop 1952; 3:44–45. [Google Scholar]
- 28. Shiro I. Study on the ultrasonic irradiation in orthopedic surgery. Hirosaki Med 1964; 16:242–253. [Google Scholar]
- 29. Xavier C, Duarte L. Ultrasonic stimulation on bone callus: clinical application. Rev Brazil Orthop 1983; 18:73–80. [Google Scholar]
- 30. Heckman JD, Ryaby JP, McCabe J, Frey JJ, Kilcoyne RF. Acceleration of tibial fracture‐healing by non‐invasive, low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994; 76:26–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Kristiansen TK, Ryaby JP, McCabe J, Frey JJ, Roe LR. Accelerated healing of distal radial fractures with the use of specific, low‐intensity ultrasound. A multicenter, prospective, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997; 79:961–973. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Nolte PA, van der Krans A, Patka P, Janssen IM, Ryaby JP, Albers GH. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound in the treatment of nonunions. J Trauma 2001; 51:693–702.discussion 702‐3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Haglin JM, Jain S, Eltorai AEM, Daniels AH. Bone growth stimulation: a critical analysis review. JBJS Rev 2017; 5:e8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Shimazaki A, Inui K, Azuma Y, Nishimura N, Yamano Y. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound accelerates bone maturation in distraction osteogenesis in rabbits. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000; 82:1077–1082. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Heybeli N, Yesildag A, Oyar O, Gulsoy UK, Tekinsoy MA, Mumcu EF. Diagnostic ultrasound treatment increases the bone fracture‐healing rate in an internally fixed rat femoral osteotomy model. J. Ultrasound Med 2002; 21:1357–1363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Rutten S, Nolte PA, Guit GL, Bouman DE, Albers GH. Use of low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound for posttraumatic nonunions of the tibia: a review of patients treated in The Netherlands. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2007; 62:902–908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Gebauer D, Mayr E, Orthner E, Ryaby JP. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound: effects on nonunions. Ultrasound Med Biol 2005; 31:1391–1402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Higgins A, Glover M, Yang Y, Bayliss S, Meads C, Lord J. EXOGEN ultrasound bone healing system for long bone fractures with non‐union or delayed healing: a NICE medical technology guidance. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2014; 12:477–484. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Warden SJ, Fuchs RK, Kessler CK, Avin KG, Cardinal RE, Stewart RL. Ultrasound produced by a conventional therapeutic ultrasound unit accelerates fracture repair. Phys Ther 2006; 86:1118–1127. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Mayr E, Rudzki M, Rudzki M, Borchardt B, Häusser H, Rüter A. Does low intensity, pulsed ultrasound speed healing of scaphoid fractures? Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2000; 32:115–122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Romano CL, Romano D, Logoluso N. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound for the treatment of bone delayed union or nonunion: a review. Ultrasound Med Biol 2009; 35:529–536. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Tanzer M, Kantor S, Bobyn J. Enhancement of bone growth into porous intramedullary implants using non‐invasive low intensity ultrasound. J Orthop Res 2001; 19:195–199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Cavaliere R. Azione coadiuvante degli ultrasuoni nel trattamento delle fratture mascellari. Riv Ital Stomatol 1957; 12:1397–1406. [Google Scholar]
- 44. El‐Bialy TH, Elgazzar RF, Megahed EE, Royston TJ. Effects of ultrasound modes on mandibular osteodistraction. J Dent Res 2008; 87:953–957. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Erdogan O, Esen E, Ustun Y, et al. Effects of low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound on healing of mandibular fractures: an experimental study in rabbits. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 64:180–188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Watanabe Y, Matsushita T, Bhandari M, Zdero R, Schemitsch EH. Ultrasound for fracture healing: current evidence. J Orthop Trauma 2010; 24:S56–S61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Gebauer GP, Lin SS, Beam HA, Vieira P, Parsons JR. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound increases the fracture callus strength in diabetic BB Wistar rats but does not affect cellular proliferation. J Orthop Res 2002; 20:587–592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Zura R, Xu ZJ, Della Rocca GJ, Mehta S, Steen RG. When is a fracture not “fresh”? Aligning reimbursement with patient outcome after treatment with low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound. J Orthop Trauma 2017; 31:248–251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Lou S, Lv H, Li Z, Zhang L, Tang P. The effects of low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound on fresh fracture: a meta‐analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96:e8181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Emami A, Petrén‐Mallmin M, Larsson S. No effect of low‐intensity ultrasound on healing time of intramedullary fixed tibial fractures. J Orthop Trauma 1999; 13:252–257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Leung K‐S, Lee W‐S, Tsui H‐F, Liu PP‐L, Cheung W‐H. Complex tibial fracture outcomes following treatment with low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 2004; 30:389–395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Handolin L, Kiljunen V, Arnala I, et al. Effect of ultrasound therapy on bone healing of lateral malleolar fractures of the ankle joint fixed with bioabsorbable screws. J Orthop Sci 2005; 10:391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Lubbert PH, van der Rijt RH, Hoorntje LE, van der Werken C. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) in fresh clavicle fractures: a multi‐centre double blind randomised controlled trial. Injury 2008; 39:1444–1452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Gan TY, Kuah DE, Graham KS, Markson G. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound in lower limb bone stress injuries: a randomized controlled trial. Clin J Sport Med 2014; 24:457–460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Group TIW, Busse JW, Bhandari M, et al. Re‐evaluation of low intensity pulsed ultrasound in treatment of tibial fractures (TRUST): randomized clinical trial. BMJ 2016; 355:i5351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Yan S‐G, Huang L‐Y, Cai X‐Z. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound: a potential non‐invasive therapy for femoral head osteonecrosis. Med Hypotheses 2011; 76:4–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Watanabe Y, Arai Y, Takenaka N, Kobayashi M, Matsushita T. Three key factors affecting treatment results of low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound for delayed unions and nonunions: instability, gap size, and atrophic nonunion. J Orthop Sci 2013; 18:803–810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Nolte P, Maas M, Roolker L, Marti R, Albers G, Biostatistician A. Effect of low‐intensity ultrasound on bone healing in osteotomies of the lower extremity: a randomised trial. In: Nolte PA (ed). Nonunions–Surgery and Low‐Intensity Ultrasound Treatment, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Thela Thesis Publishers; 2002:96‐106. [Google Scholar]
- 59. Jingushi S, Mizuno K, Matsushita T, Itoman M. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound treatment for postoperative delayed union or nonunion of long bone fractures. J Orthop Sci 2007; 12:35–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Zura R, Della Rocca GJ, Mehta S, et al. Treatment of chronic (>1 year) fracture nonunion: heal rate in a cohort of 767 patients treated with low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS). Injury 2015; 46:2036–2041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Elvey MH, Miller R, Khor KS, Protopapa E, Horwitz MD, Hunter AR. The use of low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound in hand and wrist nonunions. J Plas Surg Hand Surg 2020; 54:101–106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Pounder NM, Harrison AJ. Low intensity pulsed ultrasound for fracture healing: a review of the clinical evidence and the associated biological mechanism of action. Ultrasonics 2008; 48:330–338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Bawale R, Segmeister M, Sinha S, Shariff S, Singh B. Experience of an isolated use of low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound therapy on fracture healing in established non‐unions: a prospective case series. J Ultrasound 2020; 1–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Biglari B, Yildirim TM, Swing T, Bruckner T, Danner W, Moghaddam A. Failed treatment of long bone nonunions with low intensity pulsed ultrasound. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2016; 136:1121–1134. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Leighton R, Watson JT, Giannoudis P, Papakostidis C, Harrison A, Steen RG. Healing of fracture nonunions treated with low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS): a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Injury 2017; 48:1339–1347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Mayr E, Frankel V, Ruter A. Ultrasound—an alternative healing method for nonunions? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2000; 120:1–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Schofer MD, Block JE, Aigner J, Schmelz A. Improved healing response in delayed unions of the tibia with low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound: results of a randomized sham‐controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010; 11:229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Rutten S, Nulend JK, Guit G, et al., Use of low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound stimulation of delayed unions of the osteotomized fibula: a prospective randomized double‐blind trial. Low‐Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Treatment in Delayed Bone Healing, 2012: p. 37.
- 69. Farkash U, Bain O, Gam A, Nyska M, Sagiv P. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound for treating delayed union scaphoid fractures: case series. J Orthop Surg Res 2015; 10:72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Teoh KH, Whitham R, Wong JF, Hariharan K. The use of low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound in treating delayed union of fifth metatarsal fractures. The Foot 2018; 35:52–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. El‐Mowafi H, Mohsen M. The effect of low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound on callus maturation in tibial distraction osteogenesis. Int Orthop 2005; 29:121–124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Tsumaki N, Kakiuchi M, Sasaki J, Ochi T, Yoshikawa H. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound accelerates maturation of callus in patients treated with opening‐wedge high tibial osteotomy by hemicallotasis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86:2399–2405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Schortinghuis J, Bronckers AL, Stegenga B, Raghoebar GM, de Bont LG. Ultrasound to stimulate early bone formation in a distraction gap: a double blind randomised clinical pilot trial in the edentulous mandible. Arch Oral Biol 2005; 50:411–420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Dudda M, Hauser J, Muhr G, Esenwein SA. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound as a useful adjuvant during distraction osteogenesis: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2011; 71:1376–1380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Salem KH, Schmelz A. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound shortens the treatment time in tibial distraction osteogenesis. Int Orthop 2014; 38:1477–1482. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Simpson A, Keenan G, Nayagam S, Atkins R, Marsh D, Clement N. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound does not influence bone healing by distraction osteogenesis: a multicentre double‐blind randomised control trial. Bone Joint J 2017; 99:494–502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Tis JE, Meffert CR, Inoue N, et al. The effect of low intensity pulsed ultrasound applied to rabbit tibiae during the consolidation phase of distraction osteogenesis. J Orthop Res 2002; 20:793–800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Raza H, Saltaji H, Kaur H, Flores‐Mir C, El‐Bialy T. Effect of low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound on distraction osteogenesis treatment time: a meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Ultrasound Med 2016; 35:349–358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Uddin SM, Qin Y‐X. Dynamic acoustic radiation force retains bone structural and mechanical integrity in a functional disuse osteopenia model. Bone 2015; 75:8–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Lu H, Liu F, Chen H, et al. The effect of low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound on bone‐tendon junction healing: initiating after inflammation stage. J Orthop Res 2016; 34:1697–1706. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Shakouri K, Eftekharsadat B, Oskuie MR, et al. Effect of low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound on fracture callus mineral density and flexural strength in rabbit tibial fresh fracture. J Orthop Sci 2010; 15:240–244. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Hulth A. Current concepts of fracture healing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; 249:265–284. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Mahoney CM, Morgan MR, Harrison A, Humphries MJ, Bass MD. Therapeutic ultrasound bypasses canonical syndecan‐4 signaling to activate rac1. J Biol Chem 2009; 284:8898–8909. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Harrison A, Lin S, Pounder N, Mikuni‐Takagaki Y. Mode & mechanism of low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) in fracture repair. Ultrasonics 2016; 70:45–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Greenleaf J, Kinnick R, Bolander M. Ultrasonically induced motion in tissue during fracture treatment? Ultrasound Med Biol 2003; 29:S157–S158. [Google Scholar]
- 86. Chen YJ, Wang CJ, Yang KD, et al. Pertussis toxin‐sensitive Galphai protein and ERK‐dependent pathways mediate ultrasound promotion of osteogenic transcription in human osteoblasts. FEBS Lett 2003; 554:154–158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Kokubu T, Matsui N, Fujioka H, Tsunoda M, Mizuno K. Low intensity pulsed ultrasound exposure increases prostaglandin E2 production via the induction of cyclooxygenase‐2 mRNA in mouse osteoblasts. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1999; 256:284–287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88. Lisowska B, Kosson D, Domaracka K. Lights and shadows of NSAIDs in bone healing: the role of prostaglandins in bone metabolism. Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2018; 12:1753. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89. Tang C‐H, Yang R‐S, Huang T‐H, et al. Ultrasound stimulates cyclooxygenase‐2 expression and increases bone formation through integrin, focal adhesion kinase, phosphatidylinositol 3‐kinase, and Akt pathway in osteoblasts. Mol pharmacol 2006; 69:2047–2057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Naruse K, Miyauchi A, Itoman M, Mikuni‐Takagaki Y. Distinct anabolic response of osteoblast to low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound. J Bone Miner Res 2003; 18:360–369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91. Naik AA, Xie C, Zuscik MJ, et al. Reduced COX‐2 expression in aged mice is associated with impaired fracture healing. J Bone Miner Res 2009; 24:251–264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92. Raisz LG, Fall PM, Gabbitas BY, McCarthy TL, Kream BE, Canalis E. Effects of prostaglandin E2 on bone formation in cultured fetal rat calvariae: role of insulin‐like growth factor‐I. Endocrinol 1993; 133:1504–1510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Hakeda Y, Yoshino T, Natakani Y, Kurihara N, Maeda N, Kumegawa M. Prostaglandin E2 stimulates DNA synthesis by a cyclic AMP‐independent pathway in osteoblastic clone MC3T3‐E1 cells. J Cell Physiol 1986; 128:155–161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94. Nagai M, Suzuki Y, Ota M. Systematic assessment of bone resorption, collagen synthesis, and calcification in chick embryonic calvaria in vitro: effects of prostaglandin E2. Bone 1993; 14:655–659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95. Kravchenko I, Kobernik A, Aleksandrova A, Prystupa B, Lepikh YI, Snegur P. Anti‐inflammatory action of therapeutic and low‐frequency ultrasound on the inflammatory process model on rats. Biophysics 2013; 58:423–427. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96. Liu S, Zhou M, Li J, et al. LIPUS inhibited the expression of inflammatory factors and promoted the osteogenic differentiation capacity of hPDLCs by inhibiting the NF‐κB signaling pathway. J Periodontal Res 2020; 55:125–140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97. Kusuyama J, Nakamura T, Ohnishi T, Eiraku N, Noguchi K, Matsuguchi T. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) promotes BMP9‐induced osteogenesis and suppresses inflammatory responses in human periodontal ligament‐derived stem cells. J Orthop Trauma 2017; 31:S4–S4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98. Mundi R, Petis S, Kaloty R, Shetty V, Bhandari M. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound: fracture healing. Indian J Orthop 2009; 43:132–140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99. McCawley LJ, Matrisian LM. Matrix metalloproteinases: multifunctional contributors to tumor progression. Mol Med Today 2000; 6:149–156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100. Carano RA, Filvaroff EH. Angiogenesis and bone repair. Drug Discov Today 2003; 8:980–989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101. Li A, Dubey S, Varney ML, Dave BJ, Singh RK. IL‐8 directly enhanced endothelial cell survival, proliferation, and matrix metalloproteinases production and regulated angiogenesis. J Immunol 2003; 170:3369–3376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102. Ehrbar M, Djonov VG, Schnell C, et al. Cell‐demanded liberation of VEGF121 from fibrin implants induces local and controlled blood vessel growth. Circ Res 2004; 94:1124–1132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103. Street J, Bao M, de Guzman L, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor stimulates bone repair by promoting angiogenesis and bone turnover. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002; 99:9656–9661. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104. Cheung W‐H, Chow SK‐H, Sun M‐H, Qin L, Leung K‐S. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound accelerated callus formation, angiogenesis and callus remodeling in osteoporotic fracture healing. Ultrasound Med Biol 2011; 37:231–238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105. Kang PL, Huang HH, Chen T, Ju KC, Kuo SM. Angiogenesis‐promoting effect of LIPUS on hADSCs and HUVECs cultured on collagen/hyaluronan scaffolds. Mat Sci Eng: C 2019; 102:22–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106. Hankenson KD, Dishowitz M, Gray C, Schenker M. Angiogenesis in bone regeneration. Injury 2011; 42:556–561. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107. Vavva MG, Grivas KN, Carlier A, et al. Effect of ultrasound on bone fracture healing: a computational bioregulatory model. Comput Biol Med 2018; 100:74–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108. Cheung WH, Sun MH, Zheng YP, et al. Stimulated angiogenesis for fracture healing augmented by low‐magnitude, high‐frequency vibration in a rat model‐evaluation of pulsed‐wave doppler, 3‐D power Doppler ultrasonography and micro‐CT microangiography. Ultrasound Med Biol 2012; 38:2120–2129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109. Sun MH, Leung KS, Zheng YP, et al. Three‐dimensional high frequency power Doppler ultrasonography for the assessment of microvasculature during fracture healing in a rat model. J Orthop Res 2012; 30:137–143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110. Wei F‐Y, Leung K‐S, Li G, et al. Low intensity pulsed ultrasound enhanced mesenchymal stem cell recruitment through stromal derived factor‐1 signaling in fracture healing. PLoS One 2014; 9:e106722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111. Tanaka Y, Nakayamada S, Okada Y. Osteoblasts and osteoclasts in bone remodeling and inflammation. Curr Drug Targets Inflamm Allergy 2005; 4:325–328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112. Akkiraju H, Nohe A. Role of chondrocytes in cartilage formation, progression of osteoarthritis and cartilage regeneration. J Dev Biol 2015; 3:177–192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113. Take I, Kobayashi Y, Yamamoto Y, et al. Prostaglandin E2 strongly inhibits human osteoclast formation. Endocrinol 2005; 146:5204–5214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114. Aubin JE, Heersche JN. Cellular actions of parathyroid hormone on. The Parathyroids: Basic and Clinical Concepts; San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2001:199. [Google Scholar]
- 115. Wu C. Exposure to low intensity ultrasound stimulates aggrecan gene expression by cultured chondrocytes. In 42nd Annual Meeting, Orthopaedic Research Society 1996.
- 116. Horie A. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound accelerates callus maturation in distraction osteogenesis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65:37.e3. [Google Scholar]
- 117. Feres MFN, Kucharski C, Diar‐Bakirly S, El‐Bialy T. Effect of low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound on the activity of osteoclasts: an in vitro study. Arch Oral Biol 2016; 70:73–78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118. Meng J, Hong J, Zhao C, et al. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound inhibits RANKL‐induced osteoclast formation via modulating ERK‐c‐Fos‐NFATc1 signaling cascades. Am J Transl Res 2018; 10:2901–2910. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119. Chen S‐H, Wu C‐C, Wang S‐H, Li W‐T. The inhibition effect of low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound on osteoclasts progenitor cells. In 2012 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium. 2012. IEEE.
- 120. Fujita M, Sato‐Shigeta M, Mori H, et al. Protective effects of low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound on mandibular condylar cartilage exposed to mechanical overloading. Ultrasound Med Biol 2019; 45:944–953. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121. Tian B, Lessan K, Kahm J, Kleidon J, Henke C. β1 integrin regulates fibroblast viability during collagen matrix contraction through a phosphatidylinositol 3‐kinase/Akt/protein kinase B signaling pathway. J Biol Chem 2002; 277:24667–24675. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122. Chicurel ME, Chen CS, Ingber DE. Cellular control lies in the balance of forces. Curr Opin Cell Biol 1998; 10:232–239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123. Bandow K, Nishikawa Y, Ohnishi T, et al. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) induces RANKL, MCP‐1, and MIP‐1β expression in osteoblasts through the angiotensin II type 1 receptor. J Cell Physiol 2007; 211:392–398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124. Watabe H, Furuhama T, Tani‐Ishii N, Mikuni‐Takagaki Y. Mechanotransduction activates α5β1 integrin and PI3K/Akt signaling pathways in mandibular osteoblasts. Exp Cell Res 2011; 317:2642–2649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125. Matsumoto K, Shimo T, Kurio N, et al. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound stimulation promotes osteoblast differentiation through hedgehog signaling. J Cell Biochem 2018; 119:4352–4360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126. Komiya Y, Habas R. Wnt signal transduction pathways. Organogenesis 2008; 4:68–75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127. Busse J, Bhandari M, Einhorn T, et al. TRUST investigators writing group. Re‐evaluation of low intensity pulsed ultrasound in treatment of tibial fractures (TRUST): randomized clinical trial. BMJ 2016; 355:i5351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128. Urita A, Iwasaki N, Kondo M, Nishio Y, Kamishima T, Minami A. Effect of low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound on bone healing at osteotomy sites after forearm bone shortening. J Hand Surg Br 2013; 38:498–503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129. Schandelmaier S, Kaushal A, Lytvyn L, et al. Low intensity pulsed ultrasound for bone healing: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMJ 2017; 356:j656. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130. Ebrahim S, Mollon B, Bance S, Busse JW, Bhandari M. Low‐intensity pulsed ultrasonography versus electrical stimulation for fracture healing: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis. Can J Surg 2014; 57:E105–E118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131. Rubin C, Bolander M, Ryaby JP, Hadjiargyrou M. The use of low‐intensity ultrasound to accelerate the healing of fractures. JBJS 2001; 83:259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132. Fung C‐H, Cheung W‐H, Pounder NM, de Ana FJ, Harrison A, Leung K‐S. Investigation of rat bone fracture healing using pulsed 1.5 MHz, 30 mW/cm2 burst ultrasound–axial distance dependency. Ultrasonics 2014; 54:850–859. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133. Cooper C, Campion G, Melton LJ. Hip fractures in the elderly: a world‐wide projection. Osteoporos Int 1992; 2:285–289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134. Parker M, Johansen A. Hip fracture. BMJ 2006; 333:27–30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
