Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ultrasonic bone scalpel: utility in cervical corpectomy. A technical note

  • Ideas and Technical Innovations
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) is a technically challenging surgery. Use of conventional instruments like high-speed burr and kerrison rongeurs is associated with high complication rates such as increased blood loss and incidental durotomy. Use of ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS) in cervical corpectomy helps to minimize such adverse events.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study based on the data of 101 consecutive patients who underwent cervical corpectomies with UBS for different cervical spine pathologies from December 2014 to December 2016. Total duration of surgery, time taken for corpectomy, estimated blood loss, and incidental durotomies were noted.

Results

Total surgical time was 30–80 min (59.36 ± 13.21 min) for single-level ACCF and 60–120 min (92.74 ± 21.04 min) for double-level ACCF. Time taken for single-level corpectomy was 2 min 11  ± 10 s and 3 min 41  ± 20 s for double-level corpectomy. Estimated blood loss ranged from 20–150 ml (52.07 ± 29.86 ml) in single level and 40–200 ml (73.22 ± 41.64 ml) in double level. Four (3.96%) inadvertent dural tears were noted, two during single-level corpectomy and other two during double-level corpectomy.

Conclusions

Use of UBS is likely to provide a safe, rapid, and effective surgery when compared to conventional rongeurs and high-speed burr. The advantages such as lower blood loss and lower intra-operative incidental dural tears were noted with the use of UBS.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chibbaro S, Benvenuti L, Carnesecchi S, Marsella M, Pulerà F, Serino D et al (2006) Anterior cervical corpectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: experience and surgical results in a series of 70 consecutive patients. J Clin Neurosci 13:233–238

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Eleraky MA, Llanos C, Sonntag VK (1999) Cervical corpectomy: report of 185 cases and review of the literature. J Neurosurg 90(1 suppl):35–41

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fessler RG, Steck JC, Giovanini MA (1998) Anterior cervical corpectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurosurgery 43:257–267

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mayr MT, Subach BR, Comey CH, Rodts GE, Haid RW Jr (2002) Cervical spinal stenosis: outcome after anterior corpectomy, allograft reconstruction, and instrumentation. J Neurosurg 96(1 suppl):10–16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Epstein N (1993) The surgical management of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in 51 patients. J Spinal Disord 6:432–454

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen Y, Chen D, Wang X et al (2009) Anterior corpectomy and fusion for severe ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. Int Orthop 33:477–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Emery SE, Bohlman HH, Bolesta MJ, Jones PK (1998) Anterior cervical decompression and arthrodesis for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Two to seventeen year follow-up. J Bone Jt Surg Am 80:941–951

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hosono N, Miwa T, Mukai Y, Takenaka S, Makino T, Fuji T (2009) Thermal damage to cervical nerve roots by a high-speed drill. J Bone Jt Surg Br 91:1541–1544

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sanborn MR, Balzer J, Gerszten PC, Karausky P, Cheng BC, Welch WC (2011) Safety and efficacy of a novel ultrasonic osteotome device in an ovine model. J Clin Neurosci 18:1528–1533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Xiaobang Hu, Ohnmeiss Donna D, Lieberman Isador H (2013) use of an ultrasonic osteotome device in spine surgery: experience from the first 128 patients. Eur Spine J 22:2845–2849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Li K, Zhang W, Li B, Xu H, Li Z, Luo D, Zhang J, Ma J (2016) Safety and efficacy of cervical laminoplasty using a piezosurgery device compared with a high-speed drill. Medicine (Baltimore) 95(37):e4913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Vercellotti T (2004) Technological characteristics and clinical indications of piezoelectric bone surgery. Minerva Stomatol 53:207–214

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bartley CE, Bastrom TP, Newton PO (2014) Blood loss reduction during surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis utilizing an ultrasonic bone scalpel. Spine Deformity 2:285–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Onen MR, Yuvruk E, Akay S, Saderi S (2015) the reliability of the ultrasonic bone scalpel in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a comparative study of 46 patients. World Neurosurg 84(6):1962–1967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sarkar S, Nair BR, Rajshekhar V (2016) Complications following central corpectomy in 468 consecutive patients with degenerative cervical spine disease. Neurosurg Focus 40(6):e10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hazer DB, Yaşar B, Rosberg HE, Akbaş A (2016) Technical aspects on the use of ultrasonic bone shaver in spine surgery: experience in 307 patients. Biomed Res Int 2016:8428530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bydon M, Xu R, Papademetriou K, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, Witham TF, Gokaslan ZL, Jallo G, Bydon A (2013) Safety of spinal decompression using an ultrasonic bone curette compared with a high-speed drill: outcomes in 337 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 18(6):627–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bydon M, Macki M, Xu R, Ain MC, Ahn ES, Jallo GI (2014) Spinal decompression in achondroplastic patients using high speed drill versus ultrasonic bone curette: technical note and outcomes in 30 cases. J Pediatr Orthopaed 34(8):780–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Al-Mahfoudh R, Qattan E, Ellenbogen JR, Wilby M, Barrett C, Pigott T (2014) Applications of the ultrasonic bone cutter in spinal surgery-our preliminary experience. Br J Neurosurg 28(1):56–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nakagawa H, Kim SD, Mizuno J, Ohara Y, Ito K (2005) Technical advantages of an ultrasonic bone curette in spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2(4):431–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Stubinger S, Kuttenberger J, Filippi A, Sader R, Zeilhofer HF (2005) Intraoral piezosurgery: preliminary results of a new technique. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63:1283–1287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Vercellotti T, Pollack AS (2006) A new bone surgery device: sinus grafting and periodontal surgery. Compend Contin Educ Dent 27:319–325

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Horton JE, Tarpley TM Jr, Jr Jacoway (1981) Clinical applications of ultrasonic instrumentation in the surgical removal of bone. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 51:236–242

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Sherman JA, Davies HT (2000) Ultracision: the harmonic scalpel and its possible uses in maxillofacial surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 38:530–532

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lei T, Shen Y, Wang LF, Ding WY, Zhang D, Zhang P, Du W, Li J (2014) Anterior longitudinal decompression in the management of severe ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. Orthopedics 37(5):e465–e472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Iwasaki M, Okuda S, Miyauchi A, Sakaura H, Mukai Y, Yonenobu K et al (2007) Surgical strategy for cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: part 2: advantages of anterior decompression and fusion over laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:654–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen Y, Yang L, Liu Y, Yang H, Wang X, Chen D (2014) Surgical results and prognostic factors of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. PLoS ONE 9:e102008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Boakye M, Patil CG, Ho C, Lad SP (2008) Cervical corpectomy: complications and outcomes. Neurosurgery 63(4 suppl 2):295–302

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sagi HC, Beutler W, Carroll E, Connolly PJ (2002) Airway complications associated with surgery on the anterior cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:949–953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sherief T, White J, Bommireddy R (2012) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: the outcome and potential complications of surgical treatment. Acta Chir Orthop Ttraumatol Cechoslov 80(5):328–334

    Google Scholar 

  31. Brooks AT, Nelson CL, Stewart CL, Skinner RA, Siems ML (1993) Effect of an ultrasonic device on temperatures generated in bone and on bone-cement structure. J Arthroplasty 8(4):413–418

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Sawamura Y, Fukushima T, Terasaka S, Sugai T (1999) Development of a hand piece and probes for a microsurgical ultrasonic aspirator: instrumentation and application. Neurosurgery 45(5):1192–1197

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Kim K, Isu T, Matsumoto R, Isobe M, Kogure K (2006) Surgical pitfalls of an ultrasonic bone curette (sonopet) in spinal surgery. Neurosurgery 59(4):S-390–S-393

    Google Scholar 

  34. Chen Z, Liu B, Dong J, Feng F, Chen R, Xie P, Zhang L, Rong L (2016) Comparison of anterior corpectomy and fusion versus laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament: a meta-analysis. Neurosurg Focus 40(6):E8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mc Callum J, Maroon JC, Jannetta PJ (1975) Treatment of postoperative cerebrospinal fluid fistulas by subarachnoid drainage. J Neurosurg 42:434–437

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kitchel SH, Eismont FJ, Green BA (1989) Closed subarachnoid drainage for management of cerebrospinal fluid leakage after an operation on the spine. J Bone Jt Surg Am 71:984–987

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Eismont FJ, Wiesel SW, Rothman RH (1981) Treatment of dural tears associated with spinal surgery. J Bone Jt Surg Am 63:1132–1136

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Tetreault L, Ibrahim A, Côté P, Singh A, Fehlings MG (2015) a systematic review of clinical and surgical predictors of complications following surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 24:77–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stavya Spine Hospital and Research Institute Pvt. Ltd, Mithakali, Ahmedabad, India

    Bharat R. Dave, Devanand Degulmadi, Shreekant Dahibhate, Ajay Krishnan & Denish Patel

Authors
  1. Bharat R. Dave
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Devanand Degulmadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shreekant Dahibhate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ajay Krishnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Denish Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bharat R. Dave.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 202 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dave, B.R., Degulmadi, D., Dahibhate, S. et al. Ultrasonic bone scalpel: utility in cervical corpectomy. A technical note. Eur Spine J 28, 380–385 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5536-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5536-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation