ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Ultrasonic osteotome versus high-speed burr in channel-assisted cervical key hole technology: a clinical retrospective study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR) is a common cause of neck and upper limb pain in adults and often requires surgical intervention. The keyhole technique under cervical endoscopy has gained widespread acceptance in recent years; however, the efficacy of different surgical instruments remains to be fully evaluated. As an emerging tool in spinal surgery, the ultrasonic osteotome offers high cutting precision and reduced intraoperative bleeding, which may provide advantages in endoscopic procedures.
objectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy of the ultrasonic osteotome versus the high-speed drill in endoscopic keyhole surgery for CSR, with a focus on differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, and complication rates.
methodsThis retrospective study included 85 patients with CSR who underwent posterior cervical endoscopic keyhole surgery at our institution between January 2020 and February 2024. Patients were divided into two groups based on the instrument used: ultrasonic osteotome (Group A, n = 44) and high-speed drill (Group B, n = 41). Perioperative parameters were compared between the groups, including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, Neck Disability Index (NDI), modified MacNab criteria, and postoperative complications.
resultsGroup A showed significantly shorter operative time (54.58 ± 3.76 min vs. 62.22 ± 8.19 min, P < 0.05), reduced blood loss (73.21 ± 7.79 ml vs. 88.22 ± 17.60 ml, P < 0.05), and shorter hospital stay (3.37 ± 0.08 days vs. 5.00 ± 0.94 days, P < 0.05) compared to Group B. Both groups exhibited comparable improvement in VAS and NDI scores postoperatively. Group A demonstrated a faster postoperative recovery, and the excellent-to-good rate based on modified MacNab criteria was similar between groups (94.7% vs. 88.8%, P = 0.62). The incidence of complications was comparable, though complications in Group A were milder in nature.
conclusionThe ultrasonic osteotome enhances surgical efficiency, minimizes intraoperative bleeding, and accelerates postoperative recovery in cervical endoscopic keyhole procedures, with a favorable safety profile compared with the traditional high-speed drill. Although both instruments yield similar clinical outcomes, the superior precision and hemostatic control of the ultrasonic osteotome support its broader application in spinal surgery. Further multicenter, prospective studies are warranted to validate its clinical utility and long-term safety.
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.