SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • osteoporosis;
  • unfocused shock wave therapy;
  • bisphosphonates;
  • in vivo micro-CT scanning;
  • rat

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. REFERENCES

Unfocused extracorporeal shock waves (UESW) have been shown to have an anabolic effect on bone mass. Therefore we investigated the effects of UESW on bone in osteoporotic rats with and without anti-resorptive treatment. Twenty-week-old rats were ovariectomized (n = 27). One group was treated with saline and another group with Alendronate (ALN) 2.4 µg/kg, 3×/week. UESW were applied 2 weeks after ovariectomy. Thousand UESW were applied to one hind leg, the contra-lateral hind leg was not treated and served as control. With the use of in vivo micro-CT scanning it was shown that in saline treated rats trabecular bone volume fraction (BV/TV) was higher at 2 weeks follow-up in UESW treated legs compared to control legs. However, at 4 and 10 weeks no difference was found. In ALN treated animals UESW led to a pronounced anabolic response resulting in an increase in BV/TV at all time-points. Furthermore, UESW resulted in increased cortical volume (CtV), higher trabecular connectivity and, more plate-like and thicker trabeculae. Biomechanical testing showed that UESW lead to a higher maximum force before failure and higher stiffness in all treatment groups. With histology abundant areas of intramembranous bone formation along the periosteal cortex and within the bone marrow were observed. In conclusion this study shows promising results for the use of UESW in the treatment of osteoporosis, especially when this treatment is combined with an anti-resorptive treatment. © 2012 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 31: 768–775, 2013

Osteoporosis is a disease characterized by low bone mass and a deterioration of bone micro-architecture leading to an increased fracture risk. Today's standard treatment aims at reduction of further bone loss using anti-resorptive therapy.1 However, increasing bone mass by anabolic treatment might be more optimal for reducing fracture risk. To date anabolic treatment is limited to the use of recombinant parathyroid hormone or its analog. This treatment requires daily subcutaneous administration, accompanies potential dangerous side effects like hypocalcaemia, and is expensive. Therefore this therapy is limited to patients that do not respond to or have contraindications for bisphosphonates.1

As an alternative to pharmacologic treatment biophysical stimuli have been suggested, but mechanical vibration, pulsed electromagnetic fields and ultrasound have so far not been proven to be beneficial in osteoporosis.2–5 Previously we showed that unfocused extracorporeal shock waves (UESW) with an energy flux density (EFD) of 0.3 mJ/mm2 can also induce anabolic effects in healthy rat bone.6 Pronounced increased bone formation was observed in the cortical bone and the bone marrow 7 days after UESW were applied to the hind leg of healthy male rats. This resulted in increased trabecular and cortical bone mass and improved biomechanical properties. Furthermore, we have shown that UESW can beneficially affect bone micro-architecture in a rat osteoporosis model.7 These experiments were however done with a lower EFD (0.16 mJ/mm2) and we did not find an anabolic bone response.

So far, most research included focused extracorporeal shock waves. These shock waves are used in a variety of musculoskeletal disorders like non-unions and delayed unions, diaphyseal fractures, stress fractures, osteonecrosis of the femoral head, Achilles tendinopathy, and fasciitis plantaris.8–12 Shock waves are acoustical pulses with a high amplitude (±100 bar) and a short rise time (≤10 ns) in the frequency spectrum between 16 Hz and 12 MHz.13 In focused shock wave therapy the waves converge in a focal point. In contrast, unfocused shock waves are produced as a parallel bundle, enabling a homogenous treatment of larger regions.

In experimental studies examining the effects of focused shock waves on bone it has been shown that a single treatment led to an increased differentiation of bone marrow stem cells towards osteoprogenitor cells.14, 15 Furthermore, it has been shown that several growth factors that are important for bone regeneration, including VEGF, TGF-beta 1, and several BMPs, are upregulated after extracorporeal shock wave treatment.14, 16–18

To explore the potential use of UESW to increase bone mass and subsequently reduce fracture risk in osteoporotic patients, we examined the effects of UESW on the bone micro-architecture and biomechanical properties in a rat model for osteoporosis. To investigate the additional clinical value of UESW in the presence of an anti-resorptive treatment with bisphosphonates, conditions with and without ALN (Merck, Whitehouse Station, NJ) were examined.

METHODS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. REFERENCES

Animals

Twenty-seven female Wistar rats, age 20 weeks, were obtained (Harlan Laboratories, Horst, the Netherlands). The animals were housed in threesomes at the animal facility of the Erasmus MC, with a 12 h light–dark regimen, at 21°C and received standard food pellets and water ad libitum. The research protocol (116-08-02/EUR 1455) was approved by the local committee for Animal Experiments and is in accordance with Dutch law.

Three groups of six animals were used for evaluation of bone changes during a 10-week follow-up period with in vivo micro-CT scanning and these rats were used for biomechanical testing. The remaining nine animals were used for histological and ex vivo micro-CT evaluation only and were not included in the statistical analysis. Of these nine animals, three animals were euthanized 24 h after UESW were applied (no ALN) and six animals were euthanized at 1 week after UESW were applied (three received saline and three received ALN).

Research Model

All rats received a bilateral ovariectomy (OVX) to simulate osteoporosis. This procedure was performed under sterile conditions using gas anesthesia (oxygen with 2% isoflurane; Rhodia Organique Fine Ltd., Bristol, UK). Buprenorfine (Schering-Plough, Kenilworth, NJ), 0.05 mg/kg/12 h, was given for 2 days. Three treatment groups of 6 animals were made. The first group received subcutaneous injections with saline three times per week, starting the first day after OVX. The second group received subcutaneous injections with ALN, 2.4 µg/kg, 3x/week. This is comparable to a human dose of 70 mg/week.19 Treatment was also started the first day post-operatively. In these two groups UESW were applied 2 weeks after OVX. The third group received subcutaneous saline injections similar to the first group, but UESW treatment was applied 2 days after OVX was performed. Because UESW were applied a short time after OVX the bone volume at time of UESW treatment is comparable to the ALN treated group, in which little bone loss is observed.

Unfocused Shock Wave Therapy

One hind leg was treated with UESW, the contra-lateral hind leg was not treated and served as control. Under gas anesthesia with oxygen and 2% isoflurane both hind legs were shaved and an ultrasonic gel that served as coupling media was applied. The shock wave applicator was placed at the antero-lateral side of the hind leg. Since this is an unfocussed shock wave applicator the shock wave energy is about evenly distributed over a fairly large region, that contains the entire tibia of the rat. A total of one thousand electro-hydraulically generated UESW were applied at 3 Hz with an EFD of 0.3 mJ/mm2 (Dermagold, Tissue Regeneration Technologies, Woodstock, GA, manufactured by MTS, Konstanz, Germany).

In Vivo Micro-CT Scanning

At 0, 2, 4, and 10 weeks after UESW treatment micro-CT scans were made under gas anesthesia (isoflurane/oxygen). The proximal 17 mm of the tibia was scanned (60 kV, 167 µA, using a 0.5 mm aluminium filter, over 196° with a rotation step of 1°), which takes 8 min (Skyscan 1076 scanner, Kontich, Belgium). This resulted in datasets with an isotropic voxel size of 18 µm. Three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions of two regions of interest were made (NRecon software, Skyscan). The first is of the proximal metaphysis of which trabecular bone parameters were calculated (starting just distal of the epiphysial growthplate and continuing until 2.7 mm more distal). The second reconstruction was from the diaphysis. On these reconstructions cortical bone parameters were determined (starting 9 mm distal from the epiphysis and continuing until 3.6 mm more distal). Bony and non-bony structures were separated using a local threshold algorithm (software freely available)20 resulting in binary datasets.21 Cortical and trabecular bone were automatically separated using in-house software. Trabecular architecture in the proximal metaphysis was characterized by determining trabecular bone volume fraction (BV/TV), connectivity density (Conn/TV), structural model index (SMI), and 3D trabecular thickness (TbTh). Cortical architecture in the diaphysis was characterized by cortical volume (CtV) and cortical thickness (CtTh).

Three-Point Bending Tests

Mechanical properties were determined using a three-point bending test. At 10 weeks after UESW, animals were euthanized using an overdose of pentobarbital. The tibiae were dissected, soft tissue removed, and stored in PBS at 4°C. Testing was performed with the bones equilibrated to room temperature. Each tibia was stably positioned on its medial antero-lateral site. The distance between the loading posts was 2.2 cm, in this way the posts were just distal from the condyles and just proximal from the maleoli. To ensure a stable position of the bone five pre-conditioning runs with a displacement rate of 0.01 mm/s and a maximal force of 4 N were done (Single Column Lloyd LRX Testing System, Lloyd Instruments, Hampshire, UK). Hereafter a displacement rate of 0.01 mm/s was applied until fracture of the tibia. Displacement (mm) and force (N) were registered at a sample rate of 20 Hz. Force displacement graphs were made and load to failure and stiffness (tangent of the linear portion of the force displacement curve) were determined.

Histology

The tibiae were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde. The tibiae hind legs used for mechanical testing at 10 weeks after UESW treatment were directly fixed after testing. After 21 days of fixation the proximal half of the tibiae were dehydrated and block embedded in methyl methacrylate (MMA). Sagittal sections (6-µm thick) were made. Histological assessment (e.g., new bone formation, marrow status, and cell characterization) was evaluated using hematoxilin–eosin and thionine staining (0.05% thionine in 0.01 M aqueous sodium phosphate, pH 5.8 for 5 min).

Statistics

All parameters were statistically analyzed for each time point using paired t-tests, in which the UESW treated and untreated control legs served as a pair (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA). Changes in BV/TV and CtV at each time point relative to baseline were statistically tested in treated and untreated legs separately, for each treatment group, using Mixed Model regression (SPSS 16 Software IB07, Armouh, NY). Differences of biomechanical parameters of treated legs between the three treatment groups were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA with a Tukey's multiple comparison test.

RESULTS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. REFERENCES

In Vivo Micro-CT Analysis

In saline treated rats receiving UESW 2 weeks after OVX, BV/TV was 22.2% (SD 3.3) at baseline (t = 0). During 2 weeks follow-up trabecular bone loss as a consequence of OVX was much lower in UESW treated legs than in non-treated control legs (Fig. 1a). At 2 weeks BV/TV was 20.2% (SD 3.5) in UESW treated legs compared to 13.8% (SD 3.0) in untreated control legs (P = 0.003). This demonstrates that in UESW treated legs the cancellous bone volume was 46% compared to untreated controls. However, at 4 and 10 weeks no difference could be found. Morphometric analysis of the cancellous bone showed more plate-like trabeculae (lower SMI), thicker trabeculae, and a higher trabecular connectivity in UESW treated legs compared to untreated control legs at 2 weeks after UESW (Table 1). At 4 and 10 weeks no difference between treated and untreated legs were found.

thumbnail image

Figure 1. Trabecular bone volume fraction (BV/TV) (a) and cortical bone volume (b) determined by in vivo micro-CT scanning. * Indicates P < 0.05 analyzed with paired t-test a specific time-point. # Indicates P < 0.05 for controls compared to t = 0 and + indicates P < 0.05 for treated legs compared to time-point t = 0 (mixed model statistics).

Download figure to PowerPoint

Table 1. Bone parameters determined with in vivo micro-CT scanning, mean with standard deviation
 SalineAlendronate
Week 0Week 2Week 4Week 10Week 0Week 2Week 4Week 10
UESWControlUESWControlUESWControlUESWControlUESWControlUESWControl
  • trab.th., mean trabecular thickness; conn.dens., connectivity density; SMI, structural, model index; cort.thick., cortical thickness.

  • *

    P < 0.05 in UESW treated compared to untreated controls at the same time point.

trab.th. (µm)104.2 (3.7)107.0* (2.6)96.5 (2.5)111.1 (9.7)101.1 (4.1)103.6 (4.4)99.3 (2.8)109.4 (2.8)115.3* (4.4)105.6 (2.4)117.4* (6.3)105.3 (1.5)112.7* (7.4)101.0 (4.3)
conn.dens.47.9 (12.2)38.9* (11.8)20.3 (9.0)11.7 (1.5)15.4 (6.0)1.5 (2.7)2.4 (3.1)76.4 (4.6)89.7* (7.7)76.7 (5.7)87.5* (5.3)74.3 (4.4)64.6* (8.1)47.8 (9.0)
SMI2.4 (0.2)2.3* (0.2)2.6 (0.1)2.7 (0.2)2.6 (0.1)2.8 (0.1)2.8 (0.1)1.9 (0.1)1.7* (0.1)2.0 (0.1)1.7* (0.1)2.0 (0.1)2.1* (0.1)2.3 (0.1)
cort. thick. (µm)658.6 (30.0)692.7* (14.2)666.7 (31.8)725.2* (12.9)683.6 (25.1)726.0* (21.7)684.6 (24.5)646.7 (25.1)699.9* (32.3)652.6 (20.7)750.6* (34.9)680.2 (22.7)773.5* (34.9)693.2 (18.2)

Cortical volume was significantly higher in UESW treated legs than in control legs during follow-up at all time-points (Fig. 1b). The cortical volume in UESW treated legs increased with 8.0% (SD 2.9), 13.4% (SD 5.5), and 13.0% (SD 6.2) relative to baseline at 2, 4, and 10 weeks respectively. This was less in untreated control: 1.3% (SD 2.0), 3.7% (SD 1.5), and 3.2% (SD 3.3) at 2, 4, and 10 weeks respectively. Cortical thickness was also higher in UESW treated legs compared to control legs at 2, 4, and 10 weeks (Table 1).

In rats receiving ALN, BV/TV was 28.2% (SD 1.6) at baseline. UESW resulted in an increase in BV/TV during follow-up, which resulted in a significantly higher BV/TV compared to untreated contra-lateral legs at 2, 4, and 10 weeks after UESW (2 weeks: 32.8% (SD 2.6) vs 27.4% (SD 1.6) (P = 0.0002), 4 weeks: 33.0% (SD 2.8) vs 27.0% (SD 1.0) (P = 0.0003), and 10 weeks: 27.5% (SD 3.3) vs 21.9% (SD 2.2) (P = 0.0002; Fig. 1a). In UESW treated legs the cancellous bone volume was 20%, 22%, and 26% higher at 2, 4, and 10 weeks respectively. After UESW treatment trabeculae were more plate-like (lower SMI), thicker and had a higher connectivity at all time-points (Table 1).

Cortical volume was significantly higher in UESW treated legs compared to control legs during follow-up (Fig. 1b). Cortical volume increased with 12.2% (2.7), 18.7% (4.5), and 21.5% (3.2) from baseline at 2, 4, and 10 weeks, respectively. In control legs this was 2.8% (SD 1.7), 5.9% (SD 2.0), and 7.7% (SD 2.8) at 2, 4, and 10 weeks respectively. Cortical thickness was also higher in UESW treated legs at all time points during follow-up (Table 1).

In the third group, in which UESW were given 2 days after OVX, BV/TV was 28.4% (SD 3.7), similar to the ALN treated group. UESW did again result in reduced trabecular bone loss after UESW treatment with a BV/TV of 25.3% (SD 3.6) in UESW treated legs compared to 19.5% (SD 3.9) in untreated control legs (P = 0.003) at 2 weeks follow-up (Fig. 1a). This demonstrates a 30% higher cancellous bone volume in the treated legs compared to untreated controls at 2 weeks. At 4 and 10 weeks no difference in BV/TV was found. At 2 weeks, but not at 4 and 10 weeks SMI was lower and connectivity density and mean trabecular thickness were higher in UESW treated legs compared to controls (data not shown). UESW again resulted in higher cortical volume and cortical thickness in UESW treated legs compared to untreated controls (Fig. 1b).

Mechanical Testing

In both the saline and the ALN group UESW treated legs showed significant higher maximal force at failure and higher stiffness (Fig. 2). In saline treated rats that received UESW 2 weeks after OVX the maximal force and stiffness were respectively 14% and 10% higher compared to untreated controls. In ALN treated rats maximal force and stiffness were respectively 15% and 18% higher and in saline treated rats that received UESW 2 days after OVX they were respectively 10% and 19% higher. Furthermore, maximum force and stiffness were significantly higher in ALN treated animals compared to saline treated animals (P = 0.02 for maximum force at failure, and P = 0.01 for stiffness).

thumbnail image

Figure 2. Maximal force (a) and stiffness (b) determined by three point bending test.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Ex Vivo Micro-CT Analysis and Histology

On micro-CT reconstructions at 1 week after UESW treatment, abundant areas of new bone formation were found (Fig. 3a). These areas were seen along the periosteal cortex and in the bone marrow. The latter was seen distally to where trabeculae normally extend and appears to be de novo bone formation. With histology it is demonstrated that in both these areas very active intramembranous new bone formation exists (Fig. 3b). At the cortex many active osteoblasts, osteoid, and immature bone are found (Fig. 3c). Areas with hypertrophic chondrocytes and mineralized callus were observed only sparsely. In the cortex of UESW treated tibiae osteocytes with defragmented or pyknotic nuclei and empty lacunae were found. This seemed more pronounced at the endosteal site. No periosteal detachment or subperiosteal hemorrhage were observed. In the bone marrow active osteoblasts, osteoid, and immature bone were seen abundantly around fibrotic tissue with fibroblasts (Fig. 3d).

thumbnail image

Figure 3. Reconstruction of a micro-CT scan of a treated tibia at 7 days after UESW were applied. The rat was treated with saline. New bone formation can be seen in the bone marrow (dashed arrow) and at the periosteal cortex (solid arrow) (a). Thionine staining of the area indicated by the dashed box (×40) (b). New bone formation at the periosteal cortex with osteoid and active osteoblasts (solid arrow) (×100) (c). Intramembranous bone formation with abundant active osteoblasts (dashed arrows), immature bone and fibrous tissue (×100) (d).

Download figure to PowerPoint

Further, on micro-CT reconstructions cortical cracks were identified in three of the six animals (Fig. 4). The undisplaced fractures were seen in the diaphysis only, running perpendicular to one of the three cortical columns (6–10 mm in length). Which column was affected varied. We found no more than one crack per animal. New bone formation was not directly related to these cracks since this was seen at all cortices (Fig. 5).

thumbnail image

Figure 4. Reconstruction of an ex vivo micro-CT scan 1 week after UESW treatment. Transversal reconstruction, the direction of the UESW is presented by the open arrows and the black solid arrows indicate is a micro-fracture (a). A sagittal reconstruction (b), with in the dotted box an enlargement of the cortical area that has a micro-fracture (c), which is indicated by solid black arrows. A = anterior, L = lateral.

Download figure to PowerPoint

thumbnail image

Figure 5. Reconstruction of an ex vivo micro-CT scan of an UESW treated and a control tibia at 1 week. The rat was treated with saline. The direction of UESW is shown by the open arrows. New bone formation can be seen at all cortices (solid arrows) and in the bone marrow of the UESW treated tibia. A = anterior, L = lateral.

Download figure to PowerPoint

DISCUSSION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. REFERENCES

In this study we show that a single treatment with UESW leads to an increase in trabecular and cortical bone volume, which leads to significantly improved biomechanical properties and thus to a theoretical reduction of the fracture risk. Interestingly, these effects were more pronounced in osteoporotic rats receiving ALN, a bisphosphonate that is widely used among osteoporotic patients.

Today's standard treatment of osteoporosis is an anti-resorptive treatment with bisphosphonates. ALN is widely used in that perspective. To investigate the potential role of UESW for osteoporotic patients, the effect of UESW was investigated in situations with and without treatment with ALN. We found that UESW lead to an increase in trabecular bone volume in both saline and ALN treated animals. The effect of UESW on trabecular bone in saline treated animals was only transient, while in ALN treated animals this increase was preserved during follow-up. Furthermore, the effect of UESW on cortical bone mass was more pronounced in ALN treated rats. ALN has a direct effect on the activity of osteoclasts, which subsequently leads to inhibition of bone resorption.22 Although bone remodeling is mostly a coupled system ESW did induce strong anabolic effects, which suggest that bone modeling was stimulated rather than bone remodeling.

To be assured that these favorable effects were due to the anti-resorptive effects of the bisphosphonate and not due to the higher bone volume at time of UESW treatment, we examined a third group. In this saline treated group UESW treatment was applied 2 days after ovariectomy when BV/TV was comparable to BV/TV in the group that received ALN for 2 weeks after OVX. Again UESW resulted in a decline of trabecular bone loss. The relative loss in BV/TV in saline treated rats that received UESW 2 weeks after ovariectomy and rats that received UESW 2 days after ovariectomy was both around 10% of baseline. But again this effect was not maintained at longer follow-up. This indeed suggests that the anti-resorptive treatment itself and not the amount of trabecular bone at time of UESW treatment was responsible for the increase and preservation of trabecular bone mass after UESW treatment.

Biomechanical testing showed that UESW induced bone changes result in improved mechanical properties which were most pronounced in ALN treated animals. This suggests that a treatment with UESW in the presence of an anti-resorptive treatment might further reduce fracture risk.

Abundant areas of new bone formation are already seen 1 week after UESW are applied. It is remarkable to see that the new bone formation at the periosteal site and in the bone marrow was predominantly intramembranous. In line with this is a report in which focused ESW to rat tibiae resulted in cambium cell proliferation and subsequent intramembranous osteogenesis.23 Furthermore, Takahashi et al. demonstrated that treatment with focused ESW lead to an increased expression of genes that are suggested to relate to intramembranous bone formation.24 In a previous report in which we applied UESW with an EFD of 0.3 mJ/mm2 to the hind leg of non-osteoporotic male rats, we found that UESW resulted in lysis of hematopoetic cells, destruction of adipocytes, and disruption of micro-vessels.6 We did not observe these features when osteoporotic rats were treated with UESW with an EFD of 0.16 mJ/mm2.7 We believe that in the current study the effects of UESW on the bone marrow led to the formation of fibrotic tissue. Subsequently, extensive areas of intramembranous bone formation are formed. These features show great similarity with bone marrow ablation models. These models are used to examine bone regeneration after the bone marrow is mechanically removed.25, 26 Regeneration is followed through specific stages including an inflammatory stage with clot formation, a repair phase with neovascularization and cell migration (including mesenchymal stem cells), and finally a remodeling phase to re-establish the hematopoietic and fat tissue in the bone marrow. Histological images of bone regeneration in bone marrow ablation show great resemblance to our findings. Interestingly, bone regeneration in bone marrow ablation is solely by intramembranous bone formation.27 This might suggest that treatment with UESW, which also results in intramembranous bone formation, induce similar biological responses. This needs however to be determined in future studies.

We do not have any support that UESW therapy induces a systemic effect that affects bone mass at other skeletal regions. If such a systemic effect would exist we expect to have found an effect on bone micro-architecture in the non-treated contra-lateral site during the 10 weeks follow-up. Also, the BV/TV of saline treated rats (2 days after OVX) at 2 weeks follow-up (25.3% SD 3.6) is not statistically different BV/TV of saline treated rats (2 weeks after OVX) at baseline (22.2% (SD 3.3). Furthermore, we have used whole body multi-pinhole SPECT scanning in a previous study to analyze the effect of UESW.6 In that study we also only found a local effect at the treated region.

In the current study we found cortical fractures after UESW treatment. This is in contrast to earlier experiments we have performed both at an EFD of 0.16 and 0.3 mJ/mm2.2, 3 Because these cracks were only sporadically induced and varied in location, they might be the result from an indirect effect of the shockwaves, known as cavitation.13, 28 This indirect effect, can occur when gas bubbles in soft tissue or liquid tissue, in this case blood in the Haversian system, grow by the positive pressure of the shock wave and eventually collapse. During the collapse, energy is released and high mechanical forces occur, which may cause a cortical crack as was also demonstrated in focused shock wave treatment.29, 30 There might be a correlation between the appearance of fractures and the EFD of UESW, but this has not been studied before. Since new bone formation was seen in the diaphysis of all cortices, we believe the biological responses are independent of cortical cracks. Whether these effects can also occur if the same shock waves are applied in larger species is yet unknown.

A disadvantage of (U)ESW is that the application can be very painful, especially when they are produced electro-hydraulically. Although it has been described that treatments with an EFD up to 0.17 mJ/mm2 can be applied without additional analgesia,31 we believe that especially in the older, fragile patient additional analgesia is indicated. In that perspective it has been shown that intravenous supply of Paracetamol, NSAIDs or Tramadol has good pain relieving results in ESW therapy for kidney stones.32 Alternatively, UESW treatment can be applied when the patient receives anesthesia for other indications, for instance when surgical treatment for osteoporotic fractures is indicated, UESW can be applied to the contra-lateral site and other skeletal regions to prevent other fractures.

The current study shows that UESW can potentially be used in the local treatment of osteoporosis. Especially when combined with an anti-resorptive treatment with bisphosphonates, UESW led to increased bone mass and improved biomechanical properties. Since anti-resorptive treatment with bisphosphonates is the standard treatment for osteoporosis, UESW treatment might have important implications for osteoporotic patients. Further reduction of the fracture risk might be achieved by treating those sites that are specifically vulnerable to fracture in osteoporosis. Since several clinical studies used UESW for other modalities, concerns of adverse side effects seem limited. All together these results suggest the need for a clinical study to examine the effects of UESW on bone density in humans. Most relevant skeletal sites to start with include the forearm and proximal femur. Furthermore, more research is needed to investigate the biological causes that lead to the anabolic bone response after UESW are applied.

In conclusion, this study shows that treatment with UESW leads to increased bone mass and improved biomechanical properties especially when treatment is combined with bisphosphonates. These improved properties suggests that UESW can potentially be of benefit for osteoporotic patients.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. REFERENCES

W. Schaden is medical advisor and shareholder at Tissue Regeneration Technologies, Woodstock, GA.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. REFERENCES
  • 1
    Watts NB, Bilezikian JP, Camacho PM, et al. 2010. American association of clinical endocrinologists medical guidelines for clinical practice for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Endocr Pract 16: 137.
  • 2
    van der Jagt OP, van der Linden JC, Waarsing JH, et al. 2012. Low-magnitude whole body vibration does not affect bone mass but does affect weight in ovariectomized rats. JBone Miner Metab 30: 4046.
  • 3
    van der Jagt OP, van der Linden JC, Waarsing JH, et al. 2012. Systemic treatment with pulsed electromagnetic fields do not affect bone microarchitecture in osteoporotic rats. Int Orthop
  • 4
    Verschueren SM, Bogaerts A, Delecluse C, et al. 2011. The effects of whole-body vibration training and vitamin D supplementation on muscle strength, muscle mass, and bone density in institutionalized elderly women: a 6-month randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Miner Res 26: 4249.
  • 5
    Warden SJ, Bennell KL, Forwood MR, et al. 2001. Skeletal effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound on the ovariectomized rodent. Ultrasound Med Biol 27: 989998.
  • 6
    van der Jagt OP, Piscaer TM, Schaden W, et al. 2011. Unfocused extracorporeal shock waves induce anabolic effects in rat bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93: 3848.
  • 7
    van der Jagt OP, van der Linden JC, Schaden W, et al. 2009. Unfocused extracorporeal shock wave therapy as potential treatment for osteoporosis. J Orthop Res 27: 15281533.
  • 8
    Elster EA, Stojadinovic A, Forsberg J, et al. 2010. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for nonunion of the tibia. JOrthop Trauma 24: 133141.
  • 9
    Wang CJ, Liu HC, Fu TH. 2007. The effects of extracorporeal shockwave on acute high-energy long bone fractures of the lower extremity. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 127: 137142.
  • 10
    Wang CJ, Wang FS, Huang CC, et al. 2005. Treatment for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: comparison of extracorporeal shock waves with core decompression and bone-grafting. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87: 23802387.
  • 11
    Rompe JD, Furia J, Maffulli N. 2009. Eccentric loading versus eccentric loading plus shock-wave treatment for midportion achilles tendinopathy: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 37: 463470.
  • 12
    Rompe JD, Meurer A, Nafe B, et al. 2005. Repetitive low-energy shock wave application without local anesthesia is more efficient than repetitive low-energy shock wave application with local anesthesia in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis. J Orthop Res 23: 931941.
  • 13
    Ogden JA, Toth-Kischkat A, Schultheiss R. 2001. Principles of shock wave therapy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 817.
  • 14
    Wang FS, Yang KD, Chen RF, et al. 2002. Extracorporeal shock wave promotes growth and differentiation of bone-marrow stromal cells towards osteoprogenitors associated with induction of TGF-beta1. JBone Joint Surg 84: 457461.
  • 15
    Wang FS, Wang CJ, Sheen-Chen SM, et al. 2002. Superoxide mediates shock wave induction of ERK-dependent osteogenic transcription factor (CBFA1) and mesenchymal cell differentiation toward osteoprogenitors. J Biol Chem 277: 1093110937.
  • 16
    Chen YJ, Wurtz T, Wang CJ, et al. 2004. Recruitment of mesenchymal stem cells and expression of TGF-beta 1 and VEGF in the early stage of shock wave-promoted bone regeneration of segmental defect in rats. J Orthop Res 22: 526534.
  • 17
    Wang FS, Yang KD, Kuo YR, et al. 2003. Temporal and spatial expression of bone morphogenetic proteins in extracorporeal shock wave-promoted healing of segmental defect. Bone 32: 387396.
  • 18
    Wang CJ, Wang FS, Ko JY, et al. 2008. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy shows regeneration in hip necrosis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 47: 542546.
  • 19
    Fuchs RK, Phipps RJ, Burr DB. 2008. Recovery of trabecular and cortical bone turnover after discontinuation of risedronate and alendronate therapy in ovariectomized rats. J Bone Miner Res 23: 16891697.
  • 20
    Erasmus M. The Erasmus Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, http://www.erasmusmc.ul/orthopaedic/lasor/downloads/?lay=ul, accessed 10-19-2012.
  • 21
    Waarsing JH, Day JS, Weinans H. 2004. An improved segmentation method for in vivo microCT imaging. J Bone Miner Res 19: 16401650.
  • 22
    Bellido T, Plotkin LI. 2011. Novel actions of bisphosphonates in bone: preservation of osteoblast and osteocyte viability. Bone 49: 5055.
  • 23
    Kearney CJ, Lee JY, Padera RF, et al. 2011. Extracorporeal shock wave-induced proliferation of periosteal cells. J Orthop Res 29: 15361543.
  • 24
    Takahashi K, Yamazaki M, Saisu T, et al. 2004. Gene expression for extracellular matrix proteins in shockwave-induced osteogenesis in rats. Calcif Tissue Int 74: 187193.
  • 25
    De Ranieri A, Virdi AS, Kuroda S, et al. 2005. Saline irrigation does not affect bone formation or fixation strength of hydroxyapatite/tricalcium phosphate-coated implants in a rat model. J Biomed Mater Res 74: 712717.
  • 26
    Wise JK, Sena K, Vranizan K, et al. 2011. Temporal gene expression profiling during rat femoral marrow ablation-induced intramembranous bone regeneration. PLoS ONE 5.
  • 27
    Wise JK, Sena K, Vranizan K, et al., Temporal gene expression profiling during rat femoral marrow ablation-induced intramembranous bone regeneration. PLoS ONE 5.
  • 28
    Schelling G, Delius M, Gschwender M, et al. 1994. Extracorporeal shock waves stimulate frog sciatic nerves indirectly via a cavitation-mediated mechanism. Biophys J 66: 133140.
  • 29
    Delius M, Draenert K, Al Diek Y, et al. 1995. Biological effects of shock waves: in vivo effect of high energy pulses on rabbit bone. Ultrasound Med Biol 21: 12191225.
  • 30
    McClure SR, Van Sickle D, White MR. 2004. Effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on bone. Vet Surg 33: 4048.
  • 31
    Moretti B, Notarnicola A, Garofalo R, et al. 2009. Shock waves in the treatment of stress fractures. Ultrasound Med Biol 35: 10421049.
  • 32
    Akcali GE, Iskender A, Demiraran Y, et al., 2010. Randomized comparison of efficacy of paracetamol, lornoxicam, and tramadol representing three different groups of analgesics for pain control in extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol 24: 615620.