Optimizing instrument selection during core decompression for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a 3D analysis.

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Reza Bergemann, Ryan Mullan, Alexandra Massey, Steven Tommasini, Daniel Wiznia
{"title":"Optimizing instrument selection during core decompression for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a 3D analysis.","authors":"Reza Bergemann, Ryan Mullan, Alexandra Massey, Steven Tommasini, Daniel Wiznia","doi":"10.1186/s13018-026-07057-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Core decompression is the leading surgical treatment for pre-collapse osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). There are many different instruments that are used during core decompression, ranging from drill bits to expandable reamers, yet there is limited guidance regarding how to select the appropriate instrument for an individual patient's unique anatomy. We sought to examine how lesion characteristics affect instrument performance. To quantitatively compare instruments' efficacy at removing necrotic bone while preserving healthy bone, we developed an in-silico metric called the resection fraction, defined as the volume of necrotic bone resected divided by the total volume of bone (healthy and necrotic) resected. We hypothesize the optimal instrument will vary with lesion size and type (ARCO 2021).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CT-based 3D models of 100 femurs with ONFH were created from a retrospective database of patients who underwent 3D guided computer navigated core decompression at our institution. Using these models, core decompression procedures were simulated with six different instruments. 3D volumetric analysis was used to determine the volumes of necrotic and healthy bone resected, and the resection fraction was calculated. Statistical analysis was performed to compare instrument performance across all lesions, as well as by lesion size and type.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 100 hips from 75 unique patients with ONFH were modeled and each hip's core decompression procedure was simulated with six different instruments. All three expandable reamers had higher resection fractions compared to straight instruments (drill bits). For small volume lesions, the small expandable reamer had the highest resection fractions. The medium expandable reamer had the highest resection fractions for larger lesions. The large expandable reamer had lower resection fractions across all sizes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to straight instruments, expandable reamers had the highest resection fractions. To maximize resection fraction, surgeons should personalize instrument choice to patient anatomy; small expandable reamers should be used for smaller lesions, while medium-sized reamers should be used for larger lesions. The largest expandable reamer performed worse than either the small or medium reamer for almost all lesions. Further work is needed to validate the in-silico resection fraction metric with clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":16629,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13560217/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-026-07057-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Core decompression is the leading surgical treatment for pre-collapse osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). There are many different instruments that are used during core decompression, ranging from drill bits to expandable reamers, yet there is limited guidance regarding how to select the appropriate instrument for an individual patient's unique anatomy. We sought to examine how lesion characteristics affect instrument performance. To quantitatively compare instruments' efficacy at removing necrotic bone while preserving healthy bone, we developed an in-silico metric called the resection fraction, defined as the volume of necrotic bone resected divided by the total volume of bone (healthy and necrotic) resected. We hypothesize the optimal instrument will vary with lesion size and type (ARCO 2021).

Methods: CT-based 3D models of 100 femurs with ONFH were created from a retrospective database of patients who underwent 3D guided computer navigated core decompression at our institution. Using these models, core decompression procedures were simulated with six different instruments. 3D volumetric analysis was used to determine the volumes of necrotic and healthy bone resected, and the resection fraction was calculated. Statistical analysis was performed to compare instrument performance across all lesions, as well as by lesion size and type.

Results: A total of 100 hips from 75 unique patients with ONFH were modeled and each hip's core decompression procedure was simulated with six different instruments. All three expandable reamers had higher resection fractions compared to straight instruments (drill bits). For small volume lesions, the small expandable reamer had the highest resection fractions. The medium expandable reamer had the highest resection fractions for larger lesions. The large expandable reamer had lower resection fractions across all sizes.

Conclusions: Compared to straight instruments, expandable reamers had the highest resection fractions. To maximize resection fraction, surgeons should personalize instrument choice to patient anatomy; small expandable reamers should be used for smaller lesions, while medium-sized reamers should be used for larger lesions. The largest expandable reamer performed worse than either the small or medium reamer for almost all lesions. Further work is needed to validate the in-silico resection fraction metric with clinical outcomes.

优化器械选择在股骨头骨坏死的核心减压:一个三维分析。
背景:核心减压术是股骨头塌陷前骨坏死(ONFH)的主要手术治疗方法。在核心减压过程中,有许多不同的工具可以使用,从钻头到可扩展铰刀,但是关于如何根据患者独特的解剖结构选择合适的工具的指导有限。我们试图检查病变特征如何影响仪器性能。为了定量比较器械在保留健康骨的同时去除坏死骨的效果,我们开发了一种称为切除分数的计算机度量,定义为切除的坏死骨的体积除以切除的骨(健康和坏死)的总体积。我们假设最佳仪器会因病变大小和类型而异(ARCO 2021)。方法:从我们机构接受三维引导计算机导航核心减压的患者的回顾性数据库中创建100例ONFH股骨的ct三维模型。利用这些模型,用六种不同的仪器模拟了核心减压过程。采用三维体积分析确定切除的坏死骨和健康骨的体积,并计算切除比例。进行统计分析,比较所有病变以及病变大小和类型的仪器性能。结果:对75例独特的ONFH患者的100个髋关节进行建模,并使用6种不同的器械模拟每个髋关节核心减压过程。与直管工具(钻头)相比,所有三种可扩展扩眼器都具有更高的切除分数。对于体积较小的病变,小型可膨胀扩眼器的切除率最高。对于较大的病变,中膨胀扩眼器切除率最高。在所有尺寸的扩眼器中,大扩眼器的切除分数都较低。结论:与直扩扩眼器相比,可扩扩扩眼器切除率最高。为了最大限度地提高切除率,外科医生应根据患者的解剖结构个性化选择手术器械;对于较小的病变应使用小型膨胀扩眼器,而对于较大的病变应使用中型扩眼器。对于几乎所有的病变,最大的可扩展扩眼器的性能都不如小扩眼器或中扩眼器。需要进一步的工作来验证计算机切除分数指标与临床结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
494
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of clinical and basic research studies related to musculoskeletal issues. Orthopaedic research is conducted at clinical and basic science levels. With the advancement of new technologies and the increasing expectation and demand from doctors and patients, we are witnessing an enormous growth in clinical orthopaedic research, particularly in the fields of traumatology, spinal surgery, joint replacement, sports medicine, musculoskeletal tumour management, hand microsurgery, foot and ankle surgery, paediatric orthopaedic, and orthopaedic rehabilitation. The involvement of basic science ranges from molecular, cellular, structural and functional perspectives to tissue engineering, gait analysis, automation and robotic surgery. Implant and biomaterial designs are new disciplines that complement clinical applications. JOSR encourages the publication of multidisciplinary research with collaboration amongst clinicians and scientists from different disciplines, which will be the trend in the coming decades.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书