Capacitive biophysical stimulation improves the healing of vertebral fragility fractures: a prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Abstract Background Capacitively coupling electric fields (CCEF) is a method of non-invasive biophysical stimulation that enhances fracture repair and spinal fusion. This multicentre randomized controlled trial aimed to further examine the roles of CCEF in (1) the resolution of vertebral bone marrow oedema (VBME) using a follow-up MRI study and (2) pain relief, analgesic drug consumption and quality of life improvement in stimulated patients who were referred with acute vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs) compared to non-stimulated patients. Methods Between September 2016 and December 2019, patients who were referred to the spine centres that participated in this multicentre randomized clinical study with acute VFFs of type OF1 or OF2 were included in the present study. All the VFFs were conservatively managed according to Good Clinical Practice. Moreover, the patients were randomized into two groups: the CCEF group received, as an adjunct to the clinical study protocol, biophysical stimulation with a CCEF device (Osteospine, IGEA) for 8 h per day for 60 days, whereas the control group was treated according to the clinical study protocol. At baseline (T0), the 30-day follow-up (T1), the 60-day follow-up (T2), and the 6-month follow-up (T3), each patient underwent clinical evaluation using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for Pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Analgesic therapy with paracetamol 1000 mg tablets for 7 days—or longer, depending on the pain intensity—was performed; patients were required to report their paracetamol consumption on a specific sheet between study day 8 to 180 days of follow-up. MRI studies of the thoracolumbar spine were performed at 0 (T0), 30 (T1) and 60 days of follow-up (T2) using a 1.5-T MRI system in all of the centres that took part in the study. For each VBME area examined via MRI, the vertebral body geometry (i.e. anterior wall height/posterior wall height and vertebral kyphosis) were assessed. Results A total of 66 patients (male: 9, 13.63%; mean age: 73.15 years old) with 69 VFFs were included in the present study and randomized as follows: 33 patients were included in the control group and the remaining 33 patients were randomized into the CCEF group. In the CCEF group, good compliance with CCEF therapy was observed (adherence = 94%), and no adverse effects were recorded. In the stimulated patients, faster VBME resolution and significantly less vertebral body collapse during follow-up were observed compared to the control patients. Moreover, in the active group, faster pain reduction and improvement in the ODI mean score were observed. Stimulated patients also reported a significantly lower paracetamol consumption rate from the third follow-up after treatment until the 6-month follow-up. In terms of sex-related differences, in the CCEF group, VBME showed a faster resolution in male patients compared with females. Conclusion Biophysical stimulation with CCEF, as an adjunct to traditional conservative treatment, is a useful tool to hasten the VBME resolution process and prevent vertebral body deformation. These MRI findings also correlate with faster back pain resolution and quality of life improvement. From the third follow-up after treatment until the 6-month follow-up, stimulated patients reported a significantly lower paracetamol consumption than control patients, even though back pain and quality of life showed no significant differences between the two groups. Level of evidence II. Trial Registration Register: ClinicalTrials.gov, number: NCT05803681.