Cargando…
Thoracic Spine Stenosis: Does Ultrasonic Osteotome Improve Outcome in Comparison to Conventional Technique?
INTRODUCTION: To investigate the efficacy of Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel (UBS) in thoracic spinal stenosis (TSS) in comparison to traditional technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 55 patients who had undergone conventional surgery (Group A) are compared with 45 patients of UBS (Group B) in TSS. Th...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Malaysian Orthopaedic Association
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8381659/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34429824 http://dx.doi.org/10.5704/MOJ.2107.010 |
_version_ | 1783741413688606720 |
---|---|
author | Krishnan, A Samal, P Mayi, S Degulmadi, S Rai, RR Dave, B |
author_facet | Krishnan, A Samal, P Mayi, S Degulmadi, S Rai, RR Dave, B |
author_sort | Krishnan, A |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: To investigate the efficacy of Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel (UBS) in thoracic spinal stenosis (TSS) in comparison to traditional technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 55 patients who had undergone conventional surgery (Group A) are compared with 45 patients of UBS (Group B) in TSS. The primary outcome measure of Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (m JOA) with neurological complications and dural injury were assessed. Secondary outcome measures of total blood loss (TBL), time duration of surgery (ORT) and length of hospital stay (LHS) were analysed. RESULTS: The pre-operative mJOA score 5.00(4.00-6.00) in the group A and 5.00(4.00-6.00) in the group B improved to 7.00(7.00-8.00) in the group A and 9.00(9.00-10.00) in the group B, respectively (P<0.001) at final average follow-up of 117.55 months for group A and 75.69 months in group B. More significant grade of myelopathy improvement and mJOA recovery rate (RR) were noted in group B. The TBL, ORT and LHS were more favourable in group B as compared to group A (p<0.0001). The group A had 9 (16.36%) neurological deficits compared to 2 (4.44%) in group B (p<0.001). Dural tears occurred in both groups (A=11, B=9). It was more frequent and not repairable in group A but without significant statistical difference. CONCLUSION: UBS can reduce neurological deficits and improve outcomes in TSS. Secondarily, reduced blood loss, lesser surgical time and reduced LHS are significant added advantages of this new technology. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8381659 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Malaysian Orthopaedic Association |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83816592021-08-23 Thoracic Spine Stenosis: Does Ultrasonic Osteotome Improve Outcome in Comparison to Conventional Technique? Krishnan, A Samal, P Mayi, S Degulmadi, S Rai, RR Dave, B Malays Orthop J Original Study INTRODUCTION: To investigate the efficacy of Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel (UBS) in thoracic spinal stenosis (TSS) in comparison to traditional technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 55 patients who had undergone conventional surgery (Group A) are compared with 45 patients of UBS (Group B) in TSS. The primary outcome measure of Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (m JOA) with neurological complications and dural injury were assessed. Secondary outcome measures of total blood loss (TBL), time duration of surgery (ORT) and length of hospital stay (LHS) were analysed. RESULTS: The pre-operative mJOA score 5.00(4.00-6.00) in the group A and 5.00(4.00-6.00) in the group B improved to 7.00(7.00-8.00) in the group A and 9.00(9.00-10.00) in the group B, respectively (P<0.001) at final average follow-up of 117.55 months for group A and 75.69 months in group B. More significant grade of myelopathy improvement and mJOA recovery rate (RR) were noted in group B. The TBL, ORT and LHS were more favourable in group B as compared to group A (p<0.0001). The group A had 9 (16.36%) neurological deficits compared to 2 (4.44%) in group B (p<0.001). Dural tears occurred in both groups (A=11, B=9). It was more frequent and not repairable in group A but without significant statistical difference. CONCLUSION: UBS can reduce neurological deficits and improve outcomes in TSS. Secondarily, reduced blood loss, lesser surgical time and reduced LHS are significant added advantages of this new technology. Malaysian Orthopaedic Association 2021-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8381659/ /pubmed/34429824 http://dx.doi.org/10.5704/MOJ.2107.010 Text en © 2021 Malaysian Orthopaedic Association (MOA). All Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited |
spellingShingle | Original Study Krishnan, A Samal, P Mayi, S Degulmadi, S Rai, RR Dave, B Thoracic Spine Stenosis: Does Ultrasonic Osteotome Improve Outcome in Comparison to Conventional Technique? |
title | Thoracic Spine Stenosis: Does Ultrasonic Osteotome Improve Outcome in Comparison to Conventional Technique? |
title_full | Thoracic Spine Stenosis: Does Ultrasonic Osteotome Improve Outcome in Comparison to Conventional Technique? |
title_fullStr | Thoracic Spine Stenosis: Does Ultrasonic Osteotome Improve Outcome in Comparison to Conventional Technique? |
title_full_unstemmed | Thoracic Spine Stenosis: Does Ultrasonic Osteotome Improve Outcome in Comparison to Conventional Technique? |
title_short | Thoracic Spine Stenosis: Does Ultrasonic Osteotome Improve Outcome in Comparison to Conventional Technique? |
title_sort | thoracic spine stenosis: does ultrasonic osteotome improve outcome in comparison to conventional technique? |
topic | Original Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8381659/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34429824 http://dx.doi.org/10.5704/MOJ.2107.010 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT krishnana thoracicspinestenosisdoesultrasonicosteotomeimproveoutcomeincomparisontoconventionaltechnique AT samalp thoracicspinestenosisdoesultrasonicosteotomeimproveoutcomeincomparisontoconventionaltechnique AT mayis thoracicspinestenosisdoesultrasonicosteotomeimproveoutcomeincomparisontoconventionaltechnique AT degulmadis thoracicspinestenosisdoesultrasonicosteotomeimproveoutcomeincomparisontoconventionaltechnique AT rairr thoracicspinestenosisdoesultrasonicosteotomeimproveoutcomeincomparisontoconventionaltechnique AT daveb thoracicspinestenosisdoesultrasonicosteotomeimproveoutcomeincomparisontoconventionaltechnique |