Piezoelectric BoneScalpel osteotomies in osteocutaneous free flaps

Piezoelectric technology in otolaryngology, and head and neck surgery: a review

BACKGROUND

Piezoelectric technology has existed for many years as a surgical tool for precise removal of soft tissue and bone. The existing literature regarding its use specifically for otolaryngology, and head and neck surgery was reviewed.

METHODS

The databases Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase and Cambridge Scientific Abstracts were searched. Studies were selected and reviewed based on relevance.

RESULTS

Sixty studies were identified and examined for evidence of benefits and disadvantages of piezoelectric surgery and its application in otolaryngology. The technique was compared with traditional surgical methods, in terms of intra-operative bleeding, histology, learning curve, operative time and post-operative pain.

CONCLUSION

Piezoelectric technology has been successfully employed, particularly in otology and skull base surgery, where its specific advantages versus traditional drills include a lack of 'blunting' and tissue selectivity. Technical advantages include ease of use, a short learning curve and improved visibility. Its higher cost warrants consideration given that clinically significant improvements in operative time and morbidity have not yet been proven. Further studies may define the evolving role of piezoelectric surgery in otolaryngology, and head and neck surgery.

The Reliability of the Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Comparative Study of 46 Patients

BACKGROUND

In patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), laminectomy is usually performed with a Kerrison rongeur or a high speed drill (HSD).The HSD, which is most often selected for laminectomy, may cause complications such as duratomy, thermal and mechanical neural injuries. With an ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS), a less traumatic laminectomy can be performed in a shorter time. The aim of this study was to compare the results of laminectomies using HSD and UBS.

METHODS

Evaluation was made in 46 patients who were operated on for CSM. Cervical laminectomy was performed on 23 patients using the UBS (group I) and to 23 using the HSD (group II). A comparison was made of the 2 groups in respect of demographic characteristics, laminectomy levels, mean laminectomy duration, bleeding rates, and surgical complications.

RESULTS

In group I, the mean laminectomy time was 2.2 ± 0.4 min/level, mean blood loss was 180 mL, hospitalization was 3.0 ± 0.0 days, and C5 radiculopathy was seen in 1 patient. In group II, the mean laminectomy time was 7.4 ± 2.6 min/level, mean blood loss was 380 mL, hospitalization was 3.7 ± 1.3 days, C5 radiculopathy was seen in 1 patient and dura injuries in 3 patients. The recovery rate was determined as 47.6% in group I and 48.8% in group II.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with CSM, laminectomy using the UBS provides a safe, rapid, and effective decompression with a lesser blood loss. The low rate of complications lessens the postoperative morbidity rates and shortens hospital stay.

Blood Loss Reduction During Surgical Correction of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Utilizing an Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate blood loss associated with posterior spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients performed with and without the use of an ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION

After using an ultrasonic-powered bone-cutting device with recent Food and Drug Administration approval for use in the spine, the authors perceived a reduction in bone bleeding associated with the cut boney surfaces.

METHODS

The first 20 patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis who underwent posterior spinal fusion using the UBS by a single surgeon were compared with 2 control groups: 1) the 20 most recent prior cases of the same surgeon before beginning use of the bone scalpel; and 2) 20 cases of the same surgeon before using the bone scalpel matched based on Cobb angle magnitudes. Both cases and controls had Ponte-type posterior apical releases; none had an anterior procedure. Patient demographic and surgical data were analyzed using analysis of variance (p < .05).

RESULTS

Preoperatively, the UBS group was similar to both control groups in terms of primary and secondary curve magnitudes, number of levels fused, number of levels with Ponte release, antifibrinolytic use, and patient age (p > .05). The UBS group had significantly less estimated blood loss (EBL) (550 ± 359 mL), Cell Saver blood transfused (94 ± 146 mL), and EBL per level fused (48 ± 30 mL) than the most recent controls (EBL: 799 ± 376 mL; Cell Saver: 184 ± 122 mL; EBL/level fused: 72 ± 28 mL) and Cobb-matched controls (EBL: 886 ± 383 mL; Cell Saver: 198 ± 115 mL; EBL/level fused: 78 ± 30 mL) (p < .05). Surgical times were equivalent and there were no dural tears in any group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of an ultrasonic bone scalpel to perform the bone cuts associated with facetectomies and apical Ponte-type posterior releases resulted in significantly less bleeding compared with cuts made with standard osteotomes and rongeurs, limiting overall blood loss by 30% to 40%.