ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024
Effects of different microfracture drilling parameters on bone quality: a finite element analysis.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Microfracture drilling is a surgical technique that involves creating multiple perforations in areas of cartilage defects to recruit stem cells from the bone marrow, thereby promoting cartilage regeneration in the knee joint. Increasing the exposed bone marrow surface area (more holes in the same area) can enhance stem cell outflow. However, when the exposed area is large, it may affect the mechanical strength of the bone at the site of the cartilage defect. The purpose of this study is to use the finite element method to analyze the effects of drilling diameter, hole spacing, and drilling depth during microfracture surgery on the stability of the bone structure at the cartilage defect site. Methods: In this study, a normal knee joint model was selected for solid modeling, and a model of a femoral medial condyle cartilage defect was constructed. Microfracture holes with different diameters (1.0 mm, 2.0 mm, 3.0 mm), depths (10 mm, 30 mm), and spacings (1.0 mm, 2.0 mm, 3.0 mm) were created in the femoral medial condyle cartilage defect model. Using Ansys software, the knee joint's loading conditions in the standing position were simulated, and the structural stability of the model was analyzed. The holes in areas of stress concentration were selected for more detailed mechanical analysis. Results: The Von Mises stresses for all the drilling parameters did not exceed the yield strength of the bone. Changes in the drilling parameters did not affect the bone structure around the holes. When smaller diameter drilling tools with closer spacing were used, the average maximum Von Mises stress and the average Von Mises stress on the holes were the lowest. Conclusion: Although the optimal combination of drilling parameters was not determined, this study provides a mechanical reference for the effects of drilling parameters on bone quality. It demonstrates that using smaller diameter drilling tools with closer spacing in areas of the same defect size results in a greater number of holes, with a lesser impact on bone stability. This study provides a mechanical reference for microfracture drilling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.