ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Optimizing instrument selection during core decompression for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a 3D analysis.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
Abstract
backgroundCore decompression is the leading surgical treatment for pre-collapse osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). There are many different instruments that are used during core decompression, ranging from drill bits to expandable reamers, yet there is limited guidance regarding how to select the appropriate instrument for an individual patient's unique anatomy. We sought to examine how lesion characteristics affect instrument performance. To quantitatively compare instruments' efficacy at removing necrotic bone while preserving healthy bone, we developed an in-silico metric called the resection fraction, defined as the volume of necrotic bone resected divided by the total volume of bone (healthy and necrotic) resected. We hypothesize the optimal instrument will vary with lesion size and type (ARCO 2021).
methodsCT-based 3D models of 100 femurs with ONFH were created from a retrospective database of patients who underwent 3D guided computer navigated core decompression at our institution. Using these models, core decompression procedures were simulated with six different instruments. 3D volumetric analysis was used to determine the volumes of necrotic and healthy bone resected, and the resection fraction was calculated. Statistical analysis was performed to compare instrument performance across all lesions, as well as by lesion size and type.
resultsA total of 100 hips from 75 unique patients with ONFH were modeled and each hip's core decompression procedure was simulated with six different instruments. All three expandable reamers had higher resection fractions compared to straight instruments (drill bits). For small volume lesions, the small expandable reamer had the highest resection fractions. The medium expandable reamer had the highest resection fractions for larger lesions. The large expandable reamer had lower resection fractions across all sizes.
conclusionsCompared to straight instruments, expandable reamers had the highest resection fractions. To maximize resection fraction, surgeons should personalize instrument choice to patient anatomy; small expandable reamers should be used for smaller lesions, while medium-sized reamers should be used for larger lesions. The largest expandable reamer performed worse than either the small or medium reamer for almost all lesions. Further work is needed to validate the in-silico resection fraction metric with clinical outcomes.
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.