The Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel does not Outperform the High-Speed Drill: A Single Academic Experience.

BACKGROUND: Spinal decompression and osteotomies are conventionally performed using high-speed drills (HSDs) and rongeurs. The ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS) is a tissue-specific osteotome that preferentially cuts bone while sparing the surrounding soft tissues. There is ongoing investigation into its ability to optimize peri- and postoperative outcomes in spine surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the intraoperative metrics and complications during a transition period from HSD to UBS. METHODS: A single-institution, single-surgeon retrospective analysis was conducted of patients undergoing spine surgery from January 2020 to December 2021. Statistical analyses were performed to detect associations between the surgical technique and outcomes of interest. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 193 patients met the inclusion criteria (HSD, n = 100; UBS, n = 93). Multivariate logistic regression revealed similar durotomy (P = 0.10), nerve injury (P = 0.20), and reoperation (P = 0.68) rates. Although the estimated blood loss (EBL) and length of stay were similar, the operative time was significantly longer with the UBS (192.81 vs. 204.72 minutes; P = 0.03). Each subsequent surgery using the UBS revealed a 3.1% decrease in the probability of nerve injury (P = 0.026) but had no significant effects on the operative time, EBL, or probability of durotomy or reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: The UBS achieves outcomes on par with conventional tools, with a trend toward a lower incidence of neurologic injury. The expected reductions in EBL and durotomy were not realized in our cohort, perhaps because of a high proportion of revision surgeries, although these might be dependent on surgeon familiarity, among other operative factors. Future prospective studies are needed to validate our results and further refine the optimal application of this device in spine surgery.

Comparison of Perioperative and Long-term Outcomes Following PEEK and Autologous Cranioplasty: A Single Institution Experience and Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVE: Three-dimensionally (3D) printed polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) implants are a relatively novel option for cranioplasty that have recently gained popularity. However, there is ongoing debate with respect to material efficacy and safety compared to autologous bone grafts. The purpose of this study was to offer our institution's experience and add to the growing body of literature. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective analysis of patients undergoing cranioplasties between 2016 and 2021. Patients were divided into PEEK and autologous cranioplasty cohorts. Parameters of interest included patient demographics as well as perioperative (<3 months postoperative) and long-term outcomes (>3 months postoperative). A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients met inclusion criteria (PEEK: 15, Autologous: 16). Mean age of total cohort was 48.9 years (range 19-82 years). Modified Frailty Index (mFI) revealed greater rate of comorbidities among the Autologous group (P = 0.073), which was accounted for in statistical analyses. Multiple logistic regression model revealed significantly higher rate of surgical site infection in the Autologous cohort (31.3% vs. 0%, P = 0.011). Minor complications were similar between groups, while the Autologous group experienced significantly more major postoperative complications (50%) versus PEEK (13.3%) (P = 0.0291). Otherwise perioperative and long term complication profiles were similar between groups. Additionally, generalized linear model demonstrated both cohorts had similar mean hospital length of stay (LoS) (Autologous: 16.1 vs. PEEK: 10.7 days). CONCLUSIONS: PEEK cranioplasty implants may offer more favorable perioperative complication profiles with similar long-term complication rates and hospital LoS compared to autologous bone implants. Future studies are warranted to confirm our findings in larger series, and further examine the utility of PEEK in cranioplasty.