ArticleGlobal spine journal2020
The Effectiveness and Safety of Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel Versus Conventional Method in Cervical Laminectomy: A Retrospective Study of 311 Patients.
Article in Global spine journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comparative Study of Piezoelectric Surgery versus High-Speed Drill in Cervical Spine Laminectomy.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Ultrasonic aspirators in minimally invasive laminectomies: a pilot study and technical note on reduced Kerrison rongeur usage without increased blood loss or operative time.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Article
- Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel versus Conventional Methods for Osteotomy in Posterior Surgery for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Review and Meta-Analysis.Asian spine journal · 2023Article
- Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel versus Conventional Technique for Thoracolumbar Spinal Decompression: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2023Article
- [Study on application of ultrasonic bone curette in anterior cervical spine surgery].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2023Article
- Ultrasonic bone scalpel in spine surgery.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Review
- Efficacy and Safety of the Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel in Lumbar Laminectomies.Spine surgery and related research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective cohort study.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the results of cervical laminectomy (CL) performed with ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS) or conventional method (CM).
methodThis study comprised 311 CL performed by a single surgeon between January 2004 and December 2017. Group A (GpA) comprised 124 cases of CL performed using UBS, while Group B (GpB) comprised 187 cases of CL performed using CM. These 2 groups were compared in terms of demographic characteristics of patients, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss, and surgical complications.
resultsGpA included 112 males and 12 females, mean age being 61.18 years. GpB comprised 166 males and 21 females, mean age being 62.04 years. Mean duration of surgery, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay was 65.52/70.87 minutes, 90.24/98.40 mL, and 4.80/4.87 days in GpA and GpB, respectively. Six patients were reported to have dural injuries in each group. In GpA, 2 cases of C5 palsy and 1 nerve root injury was observed, while in GpB, 3 cases of C5 palsy and no nerve root injury was reported. One patient had developed transient neurological deterioration postsurgery in GpA as against 11 patients in GpB.
conclusionNeurological complications observed in CM leads to intensive care unit admission, additional morbidity, and additional expenditure, whereas UBS provides a safe, rapid, and effective means of performing CL, thereby decreasing the rate of surgical complications and postoperative morbidity.
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.