ArticleInternational orthopaedics2025
Safety and efficacy of ultrasonic bone scalpel compared with a high-speed drill in spinal surgery: our experience in sixty cases.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- [Treatment of cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament using ultrasonic bone scalpel-assisted anterior controllable antedisplacement and fusion].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of UBS (Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel) and HSD (High-speed drill) for performing anterior or posterior decompressions in patients with pathologies in cervical and lumbar regions.
methodsBetween October 2022 and June 2024, 60 patients underwent surgery in which a UBS (Sonopet UST-2001; Stryker Neuro Spine ENT, MI, USA) and High-speed Midas Rex MR8 (Medtronic, Fort Worth, TX, USA) drill was used. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. The study included 27 men and 33 women with a mean age of 59,5 ± 14.6 years (range: 28-85). The following patient data were recorded: preoperative and postoperative JOA scores, intraoperative blood loss, and operative time for decompression in lumbar and cervical region.
resultsIn UBS group, the mean intraoperative blood loss was 166.0 ± 64.3 ml. The mean preoperative and postoperative JOA scores were 4.5 ± 1.0 and 8.6 ± 1.8 and the mean postoperative follow-up duration was 6.1 ± 4.4 months in UBS group. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 221.2 ± 93.4 ml in HSD group. The mean preoperative and postoperative JOA scores were 5.2 ± 1.1 and 8.2 ± 1.2 in HSD group. In the HSD group, the blood loss (BL) value was significantly higher (p < 0.05) compared to the UBS group. The preoperative/postoperative JOA score improvement in the UBS group was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than in the HSD group.
conclusionsThe UBS can be safely used in spinal surgery. It reduces intraoperative blood loss and provide better clinical improvement. Authors would like to emphasize that the UBS resects the bone with oscillatory movements rather than rolling motions and this mechanism of action is important in reducing the risk of dura mater injury.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40024943What 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.