Combined magnetic field results in higher fusion rates than pulsed electromagnetic field bone stimulation after thoracolumbar fusion surgery

BackgroundBone growth stimulators have been used as an adjunct to spinal fusion surgery in efforts to increase fusion rates.MethodsThe authors retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent thoracolumbar fusion surgeries by a single surgeon. Patients were then separated into three groups; pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation (PEMF), combined magnetic field stimulation (CMF) or no stimulation (NS), and computed tomography radiographic results at least 1 year after surgery were compared (solid fusion, stable nonunion, and pseudarthrosis).ResultsA total of 60 patients were included; 16 (26.7%) used PEMF, 24 (40.0%) used CMF, and 20 (33.3%) had NS. There were no significant differences in patient demographics. There was no difference in the mean fusion levels (p = 0. 477). Solid fusion was achieved in 11/16 (68.8%) PEMF, 21/24 (87.5%) CMF, and 20/20 (100.0%) NS patients. Stable nonunion was displayed in 2/24 (8.3%) CMF, and zero PEMF and NS patients. There were 5/16 (31.3%) PEMF, 1/24 (4.2%) CMF, and zero NS patients demonstrating radiologic pseudarthrosis. There was a statistically significant difference between PEMF and CMF (p = 0.017) and between PEMF and NS (p = 0.006) groups. No statistical difference was found between CMF and NS (p = 1.000).ConclusionThis is the first study to compare PEMF and CMF bone growth stimulators in patients with degenerative pathologies who underwent thoracolumbar spinal fusions. Overall, the addition of these bone growth stimulators does not improve fusion outcomes, although CMF appears superior to PEMF.