PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2023; 58(05): e706-e711
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1768627
Artigo Original | Original Article
Coluna

Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel versus Conventional Technique for Thoracolumbar Spinal Decompression: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Artikel in mehreren Sprachen: português | English
Chok-anan Rittipoldech
1   Departamento de Ortopedia, Hatyai Hospital, Songkhla, Tailândia
,
Pawat Limsomwong
1   Departamento de Ortopedia, Hatyai Hospital, Songkhla, Tailândia
,
Napatpong Thamrongskulsiri 
2   Departamento de Anatomia, Faculdade de Medicina, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Tailândia
› Institutsangaben Financial Support The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of the present manuscript.
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective The purpose of the present study is to compare intraoperative blood loss, operating time, laminectomy time, hospital length of stay, and complications in thoracolumbar spinal decompression using ultrasonic bone scalpels (UBSs) with conventional procedures.

Methods Forty-two patients who underwent decompressive laminectomy and pedicular screw fusion with a surgical level of 1–5 levels between February 1, 2020, and June 30, 2022, in a single institution were evaluated for eligibility, and 11 were excluded due to a history of spinal surgery (n = 3), spinal tumor (n = 3), and spinal infection (n = 5). A total of 31 patients were randomly divided into the UBS group (n =15) and the conventional group (n =16). Intraoperative blood loss, operating time, laminectomy time, hospital length of stay, and complications were recorded.

Results Intraoperative blood loss and laminectomy time were significantly lower in the UBS group (656.0 ± 167.6 ml, 54.5 ± 27.4 minutes, respectively) than in the conventional group (936.9 ± 413.2 ml, 73.4 ± 28.1 minutes, respectively). Overall operation time, hospital length of stay, and complications were all similar between the groups.

Conclusion The UBS is a useful instrument for procedures performed near the dura mater or other neural tissue without excessive heat or mechanical injury. This device is recommended for various spinal surgeries in addition to high-speed burrs and Kerrison rongeurs.

Keywords

decompression, surgical - laminectomy - randomized controlled trial - thoracic vertebrae - ultrasonics

Work developed in the Department of Orthopedics, Hatyai Hospital, Songkhla, Thailand.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 20. Juli 2022

Angenommen: 27. September 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
30. Oktober 2023

© 2023. Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referências

  • 1 Ravindra VM, Senglaub SS, Rattani A. et al. Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: Estimating Global Incidence and Worldwide Volume. Global Spine J 2018; 8 (08) 784-794
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Huang YH, Ou CY. Significant Blood Loss in Lumbar Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Spine. World Neurosurg 2015; 84 (03) 780-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kalff R, Ewald C, Waschke A, Gobisch L, Hopf C. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in older people: current treatment options. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2013; 110 (37) 613-623 , quiz 624
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Pereira BJ, de Holanda CV, Ribeiro CA. et al. Spinal surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease: Predictors of outcome. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2016; 140: 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Takai K, Matsumoto T, Yabusaki H, Yokosuka J, Hatanaka R, Taniguchi M. Surgical complications associated with spinal decompression surgery in a Japanese cohort. J Clin Neurosci 2016; 26: 110-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Al-Mahfoudh R, Qattan E, Ellenbogen JR, Wilby M, Barrett C, Pigott T. Applications of the ultrasonic bone cutter in spinal surgery–our preliminary experience. Br J Neurosurg 2014; 28 (01) 56-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Dave BR, Krishnan A, Rai RR, Degulmadi D, Mayi S, Gudhe M. The Effectiveness and Safety of Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel Versus Conventional Method in Cervical Laminectomy: A Retrospective Study of 311 Patients. Global Spine J 2020; 10 (06) 760-766
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Velho V, Kharosekar H, Jasmit S, Valsangkar S, Palande DA. Ultrasonic osteotome: A cutting edge technology, our experience in 96 patients. Indian Journal of Neurosurgery 2014; 03 (03) 150-153
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Nakagawa H, Kim S-D, Mizuno J, Ohara Y, Ito K. Technical advantages of an ultrasonic bone curette in spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2005; 2 (04) 431-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Nakase H, Matsuda R, Shin Y, Park YS, Sakaki T. The use of ultrasonic bone curettes in spinal surgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2006; 148 (02) 207-212 , discussion 212–213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Vercellotti T. Technological characteristics and clinical indications of piezoelectric bone surgery. Minerva Stomatol 2004; 53 (05) 207-214
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bydon M, Xu R, Papademetriou K. et al. Safety of spinal decompression using an ultrasonic bone curette compared with a high-speed drill: outcomes in 337 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2013; 18 (06) 627-633
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Wahlquist S, Nelson S, Glivar P. Effect of the Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel on Blood Loss During Pediatric Spinal Deformity Correction Surgery. Spine Deform 2019; 7 (04) 582-587
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lu XD, Zhao YB, Zhao XF. et al. Efficacy and Safety Analysis of Ultrasonic Bone Curette in the Treatment of Thoracic Spinal Stenosis. Orthop Surg 2019; 11 (06) 1180-1186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Willner D, Spennati V, Stohl S, Tosti G, Aloisio S, Bilotta F. Spine Surgery and Blood Loss: Systematic Review of Clinical Evidence. Anesth Analg 2016; 123 (05) 1307-1315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Carson JL, Poses RM, Spence RK, Bonavita G. Severity of anaemia and operative mortality and morbidity. Lancet 1988; 1 (8588): 727-729
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Proietti L, Scaramuzzo L, Schiro' GR, Sessa S, Logroscino CA. Complications in lumbar spine surgery: A retrospective analysis. Indian J Orthop 2013; 47 (04) 340-345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, Esposito I, Barakat M, Esposito F. Bone removal with a new ultrasonic bone curette during endoscopic endonasal approach to the sellar-suprasellar area: technical note. Neurosurgery 2010; 66 (suppl_1) E118
    Google Scholar