ArticleThe Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume2026
Clinical Application of an Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel in the Treatment of Osteoid Osteoma: A Single-Center Pilot Study.
Article in The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo previous studies have investigated the application of an ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS) in the treatment of osteoid osteoma (OO). We aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of UBS use, either as a standalone treatment or in combination with radiofrequency ablation (RFA), for managing OO.
methodsIn this single-center study, a retrospective analysis was performed that included patients who were radiographically or histologically diagnosed with OO at Shanghai General Hospital from September 2022 to November 2023. The treatment modalities were RFA, UBS, or RFA and UBS combined. Demographic data, clinical presentation, and radiographic characteristics were collected and analyzed. Treatment failure was defined as symptom recurrence, reoperation, or the occurrence of complications.
resultsA total of 77 patients (mean age, 16.12 ± 10.91 years; 70% male; 100% Han Chinese) were included. Most lesions (60%) were located in the femur, and the mean nidus diameter in the cohort was 11.58 ± 6.57 mm. Imaging classification revealed cortical (36%), subperiosteal (7%), cancellous (32%), and intra-articular (25%) types. Treatment included RFA (30%), UBS (34%), and RFA+UBS (36%). Visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores decreased significantly from 4.55 ± 1.12 preoperatively to 0.99 ± 0.60 on postoperative day 3 and to 0.25 ± 0.52 at 1 month (p < 0.001). No major complications occurred. The treatment success rate was 97% during the 18 to 34 months of follow-up (mean, 27.32 ± 5.05 months).
conclusionsThe UBS, whether used alone or in combination with RFA, effectively improved short-term pain relief and functional recovery in patients with OO, with no major complications. Similar to RFA, UBS use appears to be a safe and reliable treatment option for OO. Because each treatment approach has its own advantages, it is recommended to select the surgical method on the basis of the lesion characteristics. This recommended treatment algorithm supports clinical decision-making and broadens minimally invasive treatment options for OO. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.