The Effectiveness and Safety of Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel Versus Conventional Method in Cervical Laminectomy: A Retrospective Study of 311 Patients.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 32707009.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1177/2192568219876246 and PMC identifier 7383792.
- Licence recorded as CC BY-NC-ND.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Retrospective cohort study. The aim of this study was to compare the results of cervical laminectomy (CL) performed with ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS) or conventional method (CM). This 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. GpA 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. Neurological 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.
Anatomy
- cervical spine