Bone cutting efficiency and heat generation using a traditional fluted Burr and a novel fluteless resurfacing tool.

BACKGROUND

Powered instrumentation is often used for bone preparation and/or removal in many orthopaedic procedures but does risk thermogenesis. This study compares biomechanical properties of a fluted burr and a novel fluteless resurfacing tool.

METHODS

Twenty cadaveric metatarsals were tested with four predetermined cutting forces to evaluate heat generation and cutting rate for the fluted burr and fluteless resurfacing tool over 40 s or until a depth of 4 mm was reached. Cutting rate was calculated from displacement transducer data. Heat generation was measured by thermocouples placed in the bone adjacent to the burring site. Assuming a body temperature of 37 °C, a 10 °C increase in heat was used as the threshold of inducing osteonecrosis.

FINDINGS

At 1.0 N and 1.7 N, the thermal osteonecrosis threshold was reached at comparable times between burrs, while the bone removed by the resurfacing tool was on average five times greater than fluted burr at 1.0 N and over twice as great at 1.7 N. Statistical analysis of these common cutting forces showed the resurfacing tool had significantly higher cutting rates (P < 0.01). As a result, the fluted burr produced higher temperatures for the same amount of bone removal (P < 0.01).

INTERPRETATION

In a cadaveric study, the fluteless resurfacing tool demonstrated higher bone cutting rates and lower heat generation for the same amount of bone removed than a traditional fluted burr.