首页> 外文期刊>Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on >Comparison of Therapeutic Magnetic Stimulation With Electric Stimulation of Spinal Column Vertebrae
【24h】

Comparison of Therapeutic Magnetic Stimulation With Electric Stimulation of Spinal Column Vertebrae

机译:脊柱椎骨治疗性磁刺激与电刺激的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Electrical bone growth stimulators improve patient outcomes following the spinal fusion surgery, particularly important in high-risk patient populations. The therapeutic electromagnetic field (EMF) effects in tissue were modeled for two Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved magnetic stimulation devices: 1) Coil A (SpinaLogic, DJO LLC, Vista, CA) and 2) Coil B system (Spinal-Stim, Orthofix Inc., Lewisville, TX). The electric current density induced in the target tissue (spinal vertebra) was compared with that of an FDA approved electric stimulation device (SpinalPak, Biomet, Warsaw, IN). For Coil A and Coil B, the EMF source was current-carrying coils that differed in the design (single coil versus two coaxial coil system) and the current characteristics (continuous 76.6 Hz sinusoid, biased versus intermittent 3850 Hz rectangular pulse bursts repeated at 1.5 Hz, unbiased). The local maximum induced electric field and current density were over 700-fold higher for Coil B system than for Coil A but only half of the values calculated for the reference electric stimulation device. The interaction of the magnetic field and the induced current in the tissue gives rise to local Lorentz force effects expressed as magnetoacoustic pressure (MAP) that for Coil B system reached 5 dB relative to Pa of sound pressure level in bone (SPL) (compared with −45 dB for Coil A and absent for capacitive coupling reference device). The analysis broadens the range of possible mechanisms of therapeutic EMF action to include the MAP.
机译:电骨生长刺激剂可改善脊柱融合手术后的患者预后,在高危患者人群中尤为重要。针对两种食品和药物管理局(FDA)批准的磁刺激设备对组织中的治疗性电磁场(EMF)效果进行了建模:1)线圈A(SpinaLogic,DJO LLC,Vista,CA)和2)线圈B系统(Spinal-Stim) ,Orthofix Inc.,德克萨斯州路易斯维尔)。将目标组织(脊椎)中感应的电流密度与FDA批准的电刺激设备(SpinalPak,Biomet,华沙,印第安纳州)进行了比较。对于线圈A和线圈B,EMF源是载流线圈,它们在设计(单线圈与两个同轴线圈系统)和电流特性(连续的76.6 Hz正弦波,偏置的与间歇性的3850 Hz矩形脉冲猝发在1.5重复)上有所不同Hz,无偏)。线圈B系统的局部最大感应电场和电流密度比线圈A高700倍以上,但仅为参考电刺激设备计算值的一半。磁场和组织中感应电流的相互作用产生局部洛伦兹力效应,表示为磁声压(MAP),线圈B系统相对于骨中声压级(SPL)达到了5 dB(与对于线圈A为−45 dB,对于电容耦合参考器件则为-45 dB。该分析扩大了治疗性EMF作用的可能机制范围,使其包括MAP。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号