骨科手术通常需要去除骨骼或病理组织，传统方法需要使用刮匙和咬骨钳等器械。然而，这些方法可能非常耗时并导致失血增加。为了减轻这些副作用，已经开发了真空辅助工具来帮助去除组织。这些设备使外科医生能够在不丢弃组织的情况下抽吸组织，从而可能改善骨髓炎或肿瘤切除等情况的结果，同时能够收集材料用于下游应用。尽管研究有限，但真空辅助设备显示出了超越骨髓采集的前景。本研究评估了与使用真空辅助组织切除术相关的感染率和清除率、估计失血量以及总手术时间，目的是了解这些设备是否可用于各种病理条件下的组织切除。队列研究是对 2021 年 12 月 1 日至 2023 年 7 月 1 日期间使用 Avitus® 骨采集器进行骨科手术的患者进行的，该手术从其原始设计改变了用途。手术分为肿瘤学和感染病例清创术。感染病例进一步分为创伤继发感染和原发感染（骨髓炎和假体周围感染）。回顾了临床变量，包括人口统计、术中细节、并发症和随访。统计分析包括使用 R Studio 计算的描述性统计数据。该研究包括 44 名患者，其中感染清创病例最常见（原发感染：45.5%；创伤继发感染：18.1%），其次是肿瘤病例（36.4%）。在所有肿瘤病例中，均使用该设备做出了明确的诊断，并且没有术后感染的报告。原发感染病例的感染清除率为85.0%，外伤后感染病例的感染清除率为50.0%。在整个队列中，平均失血量为 314.52 mL（标准差：486.74），平均总手术时间为 160.93 分钟（标准差：91.07）。总体再手术率为 47.7%，计划外再手术率为 11.4%。真空辅助骨采集器被有效地应用于各种骨科手术的各种清创和刮除手术中。在肿瘤病例中，该设备能够以相当的复发率有效去除组织，这证明了其在最大限度地减少污染的同时保留组织以进行准确诊断的潜力。此外，在原发感染病例清创术中观察到骨髓炎根除率很高（85%）。尽管再手术率相对较高，达到 47.7%，但在再手术的各种原因的背景下解释这一数字至关重要。其中许多再次手术是作为分阶段治疗方法的一部分而计划的，或者与设备的性能无关。重要的是要承认，隔离设备对这些结果的贡献可能很困难。设备的使用应考虑成本效益和患者特定的风险因素。© 2024。作者。

Orthopedic procedures often require removing bone or pathological tissue, with traditional methods involving instruments like curettes and rongeurs. However, these methods can be time-consuming and lead to increased blood loss. To mitigate these side effects, vacuum-assisted tools have been developed to aid in tissue removal. These devices enable surgeons to suction tissue without discarding it, potentially improving outcomes in conditions such as osteomyelitis or tumor removal while enabling collection of the material for downstream applications. Despite limited research, vacuum-assisted devices show promise beyond bone marrow harvesting. This study assesses infection and clearance rates, estimated blood loss, and total procedure time associated with the use of vacuum-assisted tissue removal, with a goal to understand if these devices can be used for tissue removal across a variety of pathologic conditions.A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients undergoing orthopedic procedures with the Avitus® Bone Harvester repurposed from its original design from December 1, 2021, to July 1, 2023. Procedures were categorized into oncology, and debridement for infection cases. Infection cases were further categorized into those secondary to trauma and those involving primary infections (osteomyelitis and periprosthetic joint infection). Clinical variables, including demographics, intraoperative details, complications, and follow-up, were reviewed. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics computed with R Studio.The study included 44 patients, with debridement for infection cases being the most common (primary infection: 45.5%; infection secondary to trauma: 18.1%), followed by oncology cases (36.4%). In all oncology cases, a definitive diagnosis was established using the device, and no post-operative infections were reported. The infection clearance rate was 85.0% for primary infection cases and 50.0% for cases of infection following trauma. Across the entire cohort, the average blood loss was 314.52 mL (sd: 486.74), and the average total procedure time was 160.93 min (sd: 91.07). The overall reoperation rate was 47.7%, with an unplanned reoperation rate of 11.4%.The vacuum-assisted bone harvester was effectively utilized in a wide range of debridement and curettage procedures across diverse orthopedic surgeries. In oncology cases, the device enabled effective tissue removal with comparable recurrence rates, demonstrating its potential to minimize contamination while preserving tissue for accurate diagnoses. Additionally, a high rate of osteomyelitis eradication was observed in debridement for primary infection cases (85%). Despite the relatively high reoperation rate of 47.7%, it is crucial to interpret this figure within the context of the varied reasons for reoperation. Many of these reoperations were planned as part of a staged approach to treatment or were unrelated to the device's performance. It is crucial to acknowledge that isolating the device's contribution to these results can be difficult. The utilization of the device should be guided by considerations of cost-effectiveness and patient-specific risk factors.© 2024. The Author(s).