Efficacy and Safety of the Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel in Lumbar Laminectomies.

IF 1.2 Q3 SURGERY
Anthony M Steinle, Jeffrey W Chen, Alexander O'Brien, Wilson E Vaughan, Andrew J Croft, W Hunter Waddell, Justin Vickery, Robert W Elrod, Hani Chanbour, Julian Lugo-Pico, Scott L Zuckerman, Amir M Abtahi, Byron F Stephens
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of the Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel in Lumbar Laminectomies.","authors":"Anthony M Steinle,&nbsp;Jeffrey W Chen,&nbsp;Alexander O'Brien,&nbsp;Wilson E Vaughan,&nbsp;Andrew J Croft,&nbsp;W Hunter Waddell,&nbsp;Justin Vickery,&nbsp;Robert W Elrod,&nbsp;Hani Chanbour,&nbsp;Julian Lugo-Pico,&nbsp;Scott L Zuckerman,&nbsp;Amir M Abtahi,&nbsp;Byron F Stephens","doi":"10.22603/ssrr.2022-0138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite recent advances in applied instruments and surgical techniques, the incidence of iatrogenic durotomies caused by traditional techniques remains significant. The ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS) has been shown to improve speed and reduce complications in laminectomies in the cervical and thoracic spine when compared to traditional methods utilizing high-speed burr, punch forceps, or rongeurs. Thus, in this study, we aim to evaluate whether the use of the UBS in the lumbar spine would result in equivalent safety, efficacy, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) improvement when compared to traditional methods of laminectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from a prospectively collected, single-institution registry was queried between January 1, 2019 and September 1, 2021 for patients with a primary diagnosis of lumbar stenosis who received a laminectomy (with or without fusion) using traditional methods or UBS method. Outcomes included 3-month and 12-month values for all PROs Measurement Information System (PROMIS) subdomains, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) percentage, Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) score, operative complications, reoperations, and readmissions. Covariates selected for matching included age, operation type, and number of levels. A variety of statistical tests were utilized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>As per our findings, 2:1 propensity matching resulted in 64 \"traditional group\" patients and 32 \"UBS group\" patients. Post-match analysis found no differences between the traditional and UBS groups for demographic and baseline measures except for race and ethnicity. For the matched sample, no differences were noted in PROs, reoperations, or readmissions. There was a significant difference in rates of durotomies between the traditional and UBS groups (12.5% vs. 0.0%, p=0.049).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results showed the high-frequency oscillation technology implemented by the UBS helps to decrease the rate of injury to the dura, thus reducing the overall incidence of iatrogenic durotomies. We believe these data provide valuable information to surgeons and patients about the safety and efficacy of the UBS in performing lumbar laminectomies.</p>","PeriodicalId":22253,"journal":{"name":"Spine Surgery and Related Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ea/8c/2432-261X-7-0242.PMC10257968.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine Surgery and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.2022-0138","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Despite recent advances in applied instruments and surgical techniques, the incidence of iatrogenic durotomies caused by traditional techniques remains significant. The ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS) has been shown to improve speed and reduce complications in laminectomies in the cervical and thoracic spine when compared to traditional methods utilizing high-speed burr, punch forceps, or rongeurs. Thus, in this study, we aim to evaluate whether the use of the UBS in the lumbar spine would result in equivalent safety, efficacy, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) improvement when compared to traditional methods of laminectomy.

Methods: Data from a prospectively collected, single-institution registry was queried between January 1, 2019 and September 1, 2021 for patients with a primary diagnosis of lumbar stenosis who received a laminectomy (with or without fusion) using traditional methods or UBS method. Outcomes included 3-month and 12-month values for all PROs Measurement Information System (PROMIS) subdomains, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) percentage, Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) score, operative complications, reoperations, and readmissions. Covariates selected for matching included age, operation type, and number of levels. A variety of statistical tests were utilized.

Results: As per our findings, 2:1 propensity matching resulted in 64 "traditional group" patients and 32 "UBS group" patients. Post-match analysis found no differences between the traditional and UBS groups for demographic and baseline measures except for race and ethnicity. For the matched sample, no differences were noted in PROs, reoperations, or readmissions. There was a significant difference in rates of durotomies between the traditional and UBS groups (12.5% vs. 0.0%, p=0.049).

Conclusions: Results showed the high-frequency oscillation technology implemented by the UBS helps to decrease the rate of injury to the dura, thus reducing the overall incidence of iatrogenic durotomies. We believe these data provide valuable information to surgeons and patients about the safety and efficacy of the UBS in performing lumbar laminectomies.

超声骨刀在腰椎椎板切除术中的疗效和安全性。
导读:尽管近年来在应用器械和手术技术方面取得了进步,但由传统技术引起的医源性硬膜切开术的发生率仍然很高。超声骨手术刀(UBS)已被证明可以提高颈椎和胸椎椎板切除术的速度,并减少并发症,与传统方法相比,使用高速毛刺,冲孔钳或咬合钳。因此,在本研究中,我们的目的是评估与传统的椎板切除术方法相比,在腰椎中使用UBS是否会产生相同的安全性、有效性和患者报告的预后(PROs)改善。方法:在2019年1月1日至2021年9月1日期间,对初步诊断为腰椎管狭窄并使用传统方法或UBS方法接受椎板切除术(合并或不合并)的患者进行前瞻性收集的单机构登记数据进行查询。结果包括所有PROs测量信息系统(PROMIS)子域的3个月和12个月值、数值评定量表(NRS)疼痛评分、Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)百分比、患者健康问卷9 (PHQ-9)评分、手术并发症、再手术和再入院。选择用于匹配的协变量包括年龄、操作类型和水平数。使用了各种统计检验。结果:根据我们的研究结果,2:1的倾向匹配导致64例“传统组”患者和32例“UBS组”患者。赛后分析发现,除了种族和民族外,传统组和瑞银组在人口统计学和基线测量方面没有差异。对于匹配的样本,在PROs、再手术或再入院方面没有差异。传统组和UBS组硬脑膜切开率有显著差异(12.5%比0.0%,p=0.049)。结论:UBS实施的高频振荡技术有助于降低硬脑膜损伤率,从而降低医源性硬脑膜切开术的总体发生率。我们相信这些数据为外科医生和患者提供了关于UBS在腰椎椎板切除术中的安全性和有效性的宝贵信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
71
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信