Heat Generation During Bony Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Using a High-Speed Diamond Drill with or without Automated Irrigation and an Ultrasonic Bone-Cutting Knife: A Single-Blinded Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.

Abstract

The main objective of the present prospective, randomized, single-blinded controlled study was to measure heat during bony decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis with high-speed drills and an ultrasonic bone-cutting knife. Ninety patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis were included in this study and randomized for lumbar spinal canal decompression using either a high-speed drill with automatic irrigation, high-speed drill with manual irrigation, or an ultrasonic bone-cutting knife with automatic irrigation (USBCD). For evaluation of group homogeneity, a visual analog scale pain score and neurologic findings were measured preoperatively and postoperatively. Temperatures during bony decompression were measured using a forward-looking infrared camera system. Clinical results among the 3 groups did not differ in pain reduction, improvement of neurologic findings, or the rate of complications. However, significantly lower values were found for absolute and mean maximal temperatures during bony decompression in the USBCD group compared with the groups of patients who received the high-speed drill with automatic irrigation and the high-speed drill with manual irrigation, indicating this technique to be less aggressive in terms of thermal induction of bone necrosis. USBCD allows more precise bone removal compared with high-speed drills, and despite increased device time, no significant difference in the overall decompression time was observed. All methods examined produced short temperature peaks with possible, at least temporary, damage to bone and neural tissue. Automatic irrigation was associated with lower heat development compared with manual irrigation. Despite evidence of critical temperatures, no clinical correlation (e.g., neurologic deficits) was encountered in this study. Clinically, all 3 methods presented equally good results.