ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2019
Ultrasonic bone scalpel: utility in cervical corpectomy. A technical note.
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Ultrasonic bone scalpel in spine surgery.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Review
- Thoracic Spine Stenosis: Does Ultrasonic Osteotome Improve Outcome in Comparison to Conventional Technique?Malaysian orthopaedic journal · 2021Article
- The Effectiveness and Safety of Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel Versus Conventional Method in Cervical Laminectomy: A Retrospective Study of 311 Patients.Global spine journal · 2020Article
- Use of image-guided bone scalpel for resection of spine tumors: technical note.AME case reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAnterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) is a technically challenging surgery. Use of conventional instruments like high-speed burr and kerrison rongeurs is associated with high complication rates such as increased blood loss and incidental durotomy. Use of ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS) in cervical corpectomy helps to minimize such adverse events.
methodsWe performed a retrospective study based on the data of 101 consecutive patients who underwent cervical corpectomies with UBS for different cervical spine pathologies from December 2014 to December 2016. Total duration of surgery, time taken for corpectomy, estimated blood loss, and incidental durotomies were noted.
resultsTotal surgical time was 30-80 min (59.36 ± 13.21 min) for single-level ACCF and 60-120 min (92.74 ± 21.04 min) for double-level ACCF. Time taken for single-level corpectomy was 2 min 11 ± 10 s and 3 min 41 ± 20 s for double-level corpectomy. Estimated blood loss ranged from 20-150 ml (52.07 ± 29.86 ml) in single level and 40-200 ml (73.22 ± 41.64 ml) in double level. Four (3.96%) inadvertent dural tears were noted, two during single-level corpectomy and other two during double-level corpectomy.
conclusionsUse of UBS is likely to provide a safe, rapid, and effective surgery when compared to conventional rongeurs and high-speed burr. The advantages such as lower blood loss and lower intra-operative incidental dural tears were noted with the use of UBS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.