ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Optimal parameters and Biomechanical analysis of the lightbulb technique for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a finite element analysis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe lightbulb technique (LBT) is a common surgical procedure for treating peri-collapse osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). However, the drilling parameters and biomechanics of the technique have not been analyzed. The aim of this study was to optimize the biomechanical stability of the LBT by finite element (FE) analysis to guide intraoperative and postoperative schemes.
methodsFE models were established based on computed tomography images of a healthy adult, including three different degrees of necrotic lesion (60°, 100°, 115°), drilling locations (points C and L) and diameters (1.0 cm, 1.5 cm). The stress of the drilling entrance area, superior and inferior edges of the femoral neck, and bone flap was evaluated under three different loads at 0.5 times body weight (0.5 BW, standing on two feet), 2.75 BW (standing on one foot), and 4 BW (walking with the middle foot on the ground).
resultsThe stress of the superior and inferior edges of femoral neck, entrance, and bone flap increased as drilling diameter increased. The maximum Von Mises stress of proximal femur does not exceed its yield strength with diameter of 1.0 cm, except for diameter of 1.5 cm. The stress of entrance area and bone flap cortex at point L were higher than those at point C with same diameter. Moreover, the stress of femoral neck and entrance area decreased as the range of lesions increased, except for bone flap cortex. Furthermore, the maximum Von Mises stress of proximal femur did not exceed its yield strength with patients standing on one or both feet and walking process (4BW) with drilling diameter of 1.0 cm at points C or L after surgery, except for diameter of 1.5 cm. Meanwhile, the angles reaching to the coronal plane and transverse plane of weight-bearing area through point L with diameter of 1.0 cm were smaller than those through point C.
conclusionsThe optimal parameters of LBT can be selected with a diameter of 1.0 cm at point L. Patients can load partial weight to stimulate the healing of the necrotic area after surgery, but avoid beyond middle foot weight during walking.
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.