Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Curettage of bone is more efficient with a vacuum-assisted bone harvester than with traditional curettes.
Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBone curettage is an important technique in orthopedic procedures traditionally performed with manual curettes or rongeurs. Vacuum-assisted devices integrate suction with curettage and have the potential to improve efficiency. However, research comparing these devices with traditional methods is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of a vacuum-assisted bone harvester against the manual curette for bone debridement in a simulated model.
methodsThis study compared the Avitus® device with traditional manual curettage using modified femur bone models. A randomized crossover design was employed, where medical trainees performed curettage with both methods. Data were collected on procedure time, frequency of instrument removals, and participants’ subjective ratings of ease of use, perceived effectiveness, and overall preference.
resultsA total of 25 participants completed the study. Procedure time was faster with the vacuum-assisted device, with a median time of 113 s (Interquartile range [IQR] = 35) compared to 184 s (IQR = 77) for the traditional method (p = 0.001). The vacuum-assisted device also required fewer instrument removals (6.5 vs. 20.5, p < 0.001). Subjectively, participants rated the vacuum-assisted device as significantly easier to use, with a median ease-of-use score of 4 (IQR = 1) compared to 2 (IQR = 1) for the traditional curette (p < 0.001). Additionally, perceived speed was rated higher for the vacuum-assisted device, with a median score of 4 (IQR = 0) compared to 2 (IQR = 0) for the manual curette (p < 0.001). Despite these advantages, 40% of participants reported challenges, primarily with clogging (28%). DISCUSSION: The vacuum-assisted bone harvester was significantly more efficient and easier to use than the traditional manual curette, with faster procedural times and fewer instrument removals. Although some participants encountered issues like clogging, the device’s overall benefits in terms of procedural speed and ease of use suggest it could improve surgical workflow. Further research in real-world settings and with experienced clinicians is needed to assess its broader applicability.
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.