NanoFx’s Published Evidence
View the publications
Authors: Gianakos A. et al.
Bibl. Ref.: Arthroscopy. 2016 Oct; 32(10):2110-2117
Summary: Compared to other Bone Marrow Stimulation techniques (BMS), nanofracture results in diminished areas of destruction, sclerosis, and thickening of the subchondral bone in regions adjacent to the defect, thereby limiting the amount of perimeter compaction. BMS using larger diameter devices results in greater microarchitecture disturbances.
Authors: Benthien et al.
Bibl. Ref.: International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 2013
Summary: The smaller diameter causes less trauma to the subchondral bone surface and may provide a greater perforation density compared to the much larger 2.5-mm microfracture awl when the reported bone bridge distance of two to four millimeter is maintained.
Authors: Eldracher M et al
Bibl. Ref.: Am J Sports Med. 2014 Nov;42(11):2741-50
Summary: Small subchondral drill holes that reflect the physiological trabecular distance, improve osteochondral repair more effectively than larger drill holes.
Authors: Behrens et al.
Bibl. Ref.: e-Poster: P87 Congress: ICRS 2013
Summary: Nanofracture resulted in thin, fragmented cancellous bone channels without rotational heat generation. Compared to microfracture and K-Wire stimulation, nanofracture showed superior bone marrow access with multiple trabecular access channels extending 9 mm into subchondral bone.
Authors: Chen H et al.
Bibl. Ref.: J Orthop Res. 2011 Aug;29(8):1178-84
Summary: Drilling deeper to 6 mm versus 2 mm improved repair tissue quantity and quality in a statistically significant fashion, while drilling compared to microfracture at the same 2 mm depth produced similar repair outcomes. Improvement in tissue repair due to deep versus shallow drilling was significant
Authors: Zedde P et al
Bibl. Ref.: Joints 2016; 4(2):87-93
Summary: Nanofracture is an effective and innovative repair technique allowing deeper perforation into subchondral bone with less trabecular fragmentation and compaction when compared to microfracture; it results in better restoration of the normal subchondral bone architecture at 6 months.
Authors: Zedde P et al
Bibl. Ref.: Joints 2017; 5:27–33
Summary: Chondral repair assessed after 12 months revealed that nanofracture provided better repair tissue than microfracture, with a better cartilage architecture and tissue having greater type II collagen content
Authors: Iban et al.
Bibl. Ref.: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (KSSTA), 2020 June. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00167-020-06073-7
Summary: Adding nanofracture at the footprint during an isolated supraspinatus repair, lowers re-tear rate by 50% at 12-months follow-up. This is due to improved healing at the footprint