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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Krishnan, A, Samal, P, Mayi, S, Degulmadi, S, Rai, RR, Dave, B
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