Metallimax
Evidence
Evidence

The evidence

What published research shows about overused reamers, and what bench testing shows about the OneReam® cutting-tooth design, with every source listed.

KNOWN PROBLEMSBENCH DATAREFERENCES
95–318%
Why it matters

In a recent study, used reamers needed 95–318% more force to approach the depth new reamers reached, even with twice the reaming time.3

Known problems of overused reamers

Published research shows the high cost of worn acetabular reamers: more force, more time, smaller cavities, shallower cuts, more heat.1–4

3× force required
95–318%

Dull reamers require excessive force.3

Diametrical imprecision
−1.33mm

Dull reamers undersize the cavity.1

2× time required
+100%

Reaming time is doubled with used-up reamers.3†

Significant under‑reaming
−3.4mm

Dull reamers fail to reach the same depth.3

Thermal necrosis
65.1°C

Dull reamers can generate extreme temperatures.3,4

The answer: OneReam® Acetabular Grater System.

A smoother, cleaner cut

Smoother Cavity Finish

The OneReam tooth design left a smoother cavity finish than a standard crossbar reamer, a statistically significant difference in bench testing.*6,7

39%
lower average residual ridge height*
Average residual ridge height (in)
OneReam
0.0177
Standard
0.0290
OneReam tooth design*
Standard crossbar reamer

52 mm cavities in 30 PCF Sawbones

Lower Peak Cutting Torque

A statistically significant reduction in bench testing, with 10.5% lower average torque too (21.3 vs 23.8 in-lb).*5,7 Lower torque may mean smoother handling and less physical strain for the surgeon.7

25%
lower peak cutting torque*
Peak cutting torque (in-lb)
OneReam
43.2
Standard
57.7
OneReam Acetabular Grater

True to size

±250microns
Diametrical tolerance
143cycles
Still within tolerance*7
185.8in-lb
Held without failure†7
OneReam lands on size; the standard reamer lands undersized.*
OneReam51.92 mm−0.08 mm✓ Within rangeStandard reamer51.29 mm−0.71 mm✕ Outside range

Difference exaggerated for visibility; not to scale.

OneReamStandard reamer
Mean cavity diameter51.92 mm51.29 mm
Under planned 52.00 mm−0.08 mm−0.71 mm
Built for the hardest bone
4.3×
185.8 ÷ 43.2 IN-LB
Peak cutting torque, bench*
43.2 in-lb
Static torque held without failure† = stall torque of a widely used orthopedic power drill7
185.8 in-lb

Read the details

EVIDENCEClinical SummaryDownload PRODUCTBrochureDownload FAQCustomer FAQDownload
CARECleaning summaryPending publication
IFUInstructions for UsePending publication

Read the sources

Select articles are available for review below.

1
Hemispherical and minimally invasive total hip reamers
Slotkin et al. · Arthroplasty Today, 2016
Open article 2
Accuracy of acetabular reamers in total hip arthroplasty
Vaughan et al. · Orthopaedic Proceedings, 2010
Open article 3
Variability of cutting and thermal dynamics, new vs used reamers
Sherman et al. · Arthroplasty Today, 2021
Open article 4
Temperature threshold levels for heat-induced bone tissue injury
Eriksson and Albrektsson · J Prosthet Dent, 1983
Open article
  1. Tecomet. TS-18-0008: Dynamic Torque and Cutting Efficiency Test for Redesigned Smooth Cut Acetabular Reamers. Internal test report; October 4, 2019.
  2. Tecomet. TS-18-0010: Size and Form, and Smoothness Verification Testing for Redesigned Smooth Cut Acetabular Reamer. Internal test report; February 24, 2019.
  3. Tecomet. Cross Bar Acetabular Reamer Technical Data Sheet. Doc #10008-01 Rev. B; August 2025.
One ream. To the right size.

Email or call Metallimax to order.

(772) 265-4681 · orders@metallimax.com · www.metallimax.com
Email us

References

  1. Slotkin S, Frisch NB, Roc G, Silverton CD. Hemispherical and minimally invasive total hip reamers: a biomechanical analysis of use and design. Arthroplasty Today. 2016;3(2):131–136. doi:10.1016/j.artd.2016.09.009
  2. Vaughan P, Johnston P, Keene G. Accuracy of acetabular reamers in total hip arthroplasty [abstract]. Orthop Proc. 2010;92-B(Supp III):396. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.92BSUPP_III.0920396b
  3. Sherman WF, Flick TR, Dranoff CS, Weintraub MJ, Kale NN, Sommi C, Sanchez FL. Variability of cutting and thermal dynamics between new and used acetabular reamers during total hip arthroplasty. Arthroplasty Today. 2021;7:91–97. doi:10.1016/j.artd.2020.12.002
  4. Eriksson AR, Albrektsson T. Temperature threshold levels for heat-induced bone tissue injury: a vital-microscopic study in the rabbit. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;50(1):101–107. doi:10.1016/0022-3913(83)90174-9
  5. Tecomet. TS-18-0008: Dynamic Torque and Cutting Efficiency Test for Redesigned Smooth Cut Acetabular Reamers. Internal test report; October 4, 2019.
  6. Tecomet. TS-18-0010: Size and Form, and Smoothness Verification Testing for Redesigned Smooth Cut Acetabular Reamer. Internal test report; February 24, 2019.
  7. Tecomet. Cross Bar Acetabular Reamer Technical Data Sheet. Doc #10008-01 Rev. B; August 2025.

Notes

Known problems of overused reamers: bench and animal studies of generic new vs used reamers (references 1–4); not studies of OneReam. The 95–318% force figure is from a bench study of generic used vs new reamers in foam bone blocks. Bone injury was observed in animal studies at 47 °C for 1 minute.4
† Extra time allotted by study protocol, not measured.

A smoother, cleaner cut · True to size:
* Bench data from a reamer with cutting-tooth geometry, orientation and spiral arrangement identical to OneReam’s, vs a standard crossbar reamer (52 mm, 30 PCF Sawbones).5–7 Bench results may not predict clinical performance. Cavity photos: manufacturer data, Figures 6–7.7 Standard reamer allowed range (±500 µm) is estimated.
† Static torque test of the crossbar (manufacturer data), performed on the production crossbar reamer itself rather than the bench-test reamer.7

No surgical cutting device, including the OneReam Acetabular Grater, will maintain as-new performance after repeated use. In testing, the grater maintained its tolerancing through 143 simulated cycles. This is not a predicted useful life nor a guarantee of performance.