A blast of sound from a palm-sized device helps fractures heal faster according to a report by Carol Davis, writing in Mail Online in the UK. The battery-powered item sends pulses of ultrasound into the bone which appears to start the body’s natural healing mechanisms. The British government body NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) has approved the device for hard-to-heal fractures and says it could be a major cost-saver.
Ultrasound Blast Speeds Bone Healing

According to Davis, about 8% of the 650, 000 fractures suffered by people in Great Britain fail to heal or fail to heal properly. Especially vulnerable are injured people with other health problems such as diabetes or chronic lung disease. Why fractures in these patients fail to heal is not clear but is thought to be due to poor blood supply and suppressed healing mechanisms.
Studies show that ultrasound therapy can boost bone repair. One review of more than 500 patients showed a 34% reduction in healing time compared to a placebo. Doctors in Great Britain have used ultrasound to treat non-union fractures for a decade or more but patients have had to travel to a clinic or hospital to receive it. The manufacturers of the new device, called Exogen, say patients will now be able to treat themselves at home. The gadget is a portable device with a circular probe, around the size of a quarter, which is placed against the skin. If a patient is wearing a cast, a small hole is cut into it. Patients use the device for an average of five months.
Davis quotes Angus Maclean, M.D., senior orthopedic consultant at Glasgow Royal Infirmary, as saying about the device, “By accelerating healing, there is significant potential for this technology to save money for the NHS, by reducing the need for surgery and returning patients to work more quickly than before. Cost savings and clinical effectiveness therefore make it a win-win situation for both the NHS and the patient.”

Discussion
This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?
Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.
We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.
Join the conversation
Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.