| Title |
The Application of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (PEMFs) for Bone Fracture Repair: Past and Perspective Findings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Biomedical Engineering, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10439-018-1982-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. Daish, R. Blanchard, K. Fox, P. Pivonka, E. Pirogova |
| Abstract |
Bone fractures are one of the most commonly occurring injuries of the musculoskeletal system. A highly complex physiological process, fracture healing has been studied extensively. Data from in vivo, in vitro and clinical studies, have shown pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) to be highly influential in the fracture repair process. Whilst the underlying mechanisms acting to either inhibit or advance the physiological processes are yet to be defined conclusively, several non-invasive point of use devices have been developed for the clinical treatment of fractures. With the complexity of the repair process, involving many components acting at different time steps, it has been a challenge to determine which PEMF exposure parameters (i.e., frequency of field, intensity of field and dose) will produce the most optimal repair. In addition, the development of an evidence-backed device comes with challenges of its own, with many elements (including process of exposure, construct materials and tissue densities) being highly influential to the field exposed. The objective of this review is to provide a broad recount of the applications of PEMFs in bone fracture repair and to then demonstrate what is further required for enhanced therapeutic outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 25% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 108 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 36 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 19% |
| Engineering | 14 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 7% |
| Materials Science | 7 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 16% |
| Unknown | 37 | 34% |