Ultrasonic bone scalpel: utility in cervical corpectomy. A technical note
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsCervical corpectomy Ultrasonic bone scalpel Complications
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All the authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 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) 32:654–660CrossRefGoogle 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):328–334Google 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-393Google Scholar