See the published version of this preprint at Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Nima Jamshidi
University of Isfahan
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: During drilling of bone, which is common in clinical surgeries, heat generation increases local temperature in the drilling site. Transmission of excessive heat to the surrounding bone tissue can cause thermal osteonecrosis. Consequently, it may lead to failure of implants and fixation screws or delay in healing process. Using cooling is a method for limiting temperature elevation.
Materials and Methods: In this study, through comparing 3 conditions of drilling without cooling, external cooling with normal saline, and external cooling with OpSite spray, the efficiency of OpSite as coolant is studied. In this regard, 2 drill bit diameters, 3 drilling speeds, and 3 drilling feed-rates are considered as drilling variables in the experiments.
Results: For the whole experiments, while cooling with normal saline resulted in lower maximum temperatures than without cooling condition, OpSite had even better results and limited the temperature elevation during drilling of bone efficiently.
Conclusion: OpSite spray, which has lower infection risks than normal saline on one hand and lower maximum temperature rise with all combinations of drilling parameters on the other hand, can be considered in clinical surgeries for cooling applications.
Keywords
Bone Drilling; OpSite; Osteonecrosis; Saline; Temperature Variation; Cooling
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.
Version 3
Posted 14 Apr, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 12 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 08 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 07 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 07 Apr, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 06 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 04 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 21 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 21 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 21 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 20 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 19 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 18 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 18 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 12 Feb, 2020
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 12 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 10 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 30 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 16 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 16 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 14 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 13 Jan, 2020
Editor assigned
On 13 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 12 Jan, 2020
First submitted
On 10 Jan, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Orthopedic Surgery
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Nima Jamshidi
University of Isfahan
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.
Version 3
Posted 14 Apr, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 12 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 08 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 07 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 07 Apr, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 06 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 04 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 21 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 21 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 21 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 20 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 19 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 18 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 18 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 12 Feb, 2020
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 12 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 10 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 30 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 16 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 16 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 14 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 13 Jan, 2020
Editor assigned
On 13 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 12 Jan, 2020
First submitted
On 10 Jan, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Orthopedic Surgery
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.
Background: During drilling of bone, which is common in clinical surgeries, heat generation increases local temperature in the drilling site. Transmission of excessive heat to the surrounding bone tissue can cause thermal osteonecrosis. Consequently, it may lead to failure of implants and fixation screws or delay in healing process. Using cooling is a method for limiting temperature elevation.
Materials and Methods: In this study, through comparing 3 conditions of drilling without cooling, external cooling with normal saline, and external cooling with OpSite spray, the efficiency of OpSite as coolant is studied. In this regard, 2 drill bit diameters, 3 drilling speeds, and 3 drilling feed-rates are considered as drilling variables in the experiments.
Results: For the whole experiments, while cooling with normal saline resulted in lower maximum temperatures than without cooling condition, OpSite had even better results and limited the temperature elevation during drilling of bone efficiently.
Conclusion: OpSite spray, which has lower infection risks than normal saline on one hand and lower maximum temperature rise with all combinations of drilling parameters on the other hand, can be considered in clinical surgeries for cooling applications.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...