ArticleArthroplasty today2025
Suction-Powered Intramedullary Bone Debridement Technology Compared to Conventional Curettage in Infected Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the United States is an increasingly common procedure, often performed in the setting of prosthetic joint infection. Debridement of the intramedullary canals is traditionally performed with surgical curettes and is technically difficult and time-intensive. A suction-powered bone harvester (SPBH) is designed to improve the quality of debridement in a closed-capture system. This study assesses conventional curettage (CC) versus SPBH in debridement mass and time from intramedullary spaces. We hypothesize that SPBH will increase debridement yield more efficiently than conventional curettes. Methods: Adult patients undergoing revision TKA were enrolled to participate in the study and were divided into 2 groups. Patients in group 1 received tibial debridement with CC followed by SPBH and femoral canals with SPBH alone. Patients in group 2 received femoral debridement with CC followed by SPBH and tibial canals with SPBH alone. Results: Data were collected from 30 revision TKA cases in the setting of prosthetic joint infection. In total, 14 femora and 16 tibiae were initially debrided with SPBH, while the opposites were debrided with CC. On average, the intramedullary debridement with SPBH yielded 23.1 g compared to 13.2 g with CC ( Conclusions: SPBH is an effective tool for debridement of intramedullary canal during revision TKA. SPBH led to a significant increase of debrided mass in significantly less time than CC. There was no difference in positive culture yield between the 2 debridement techniques. This debridement technique merits consideration to reduce bioburden in revision TKA.
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.