ArticleScientific reports2024
The efficacy and safety of ultrasonic bone scalpel for removing retrovertebral osteophytes in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A retrospective study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasonic Versus High-Speed Drilling for C2 Pedicle Screw Placement with High-Riding Vertebral Artery: A Comparative Study of Vascular Safety and Thermal Injury.Annals of biomedical engineering · 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
- Use of ultrasonic bone dissector in diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis involving the cervical spine.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Application of Piezosurgery in Revision Surgery through Posterior Approach for Infection after Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation: Technique Note with Case Series.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, we present a novel surgical method that utilizes the ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS) for the removal of large retrovertebral osteophytes in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and evaluate its safety and efficacy in comparison to the traditional approach of using high-speed drill (HSD). A total of 56 patients who underwent ACDF for retrovertebral osteophytes were selected. We recorded patients' baseline information, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, JOA and VAS scores, and other relevant data. The mean operation time and the mean intraoperative blood loss in the UBS group were less than those in the HSD group (P < 0.05). Although both groups exhibited considerable improvements in JOA and VAS scores following surgery, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). Additionally, no significant disparities were found in bone graft fusion between the two groups at 6- and 12-months postsurgery. Notably, neither group exhibited complications such as dura tear or spinal cord injury. Our study found that the use of UBS reduced operative time, minimized surgical bleeding, and led to clinical outcomes comparable to HSD in ACDF. This technique offers an effective and safe method of removing large retrovertebral osteophytes.
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.