To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Effect of Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel vs Osteotomy on Blood Loss During Posterior Spinal Fusion

Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
August 2021

Effect of Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel vs Osteotomy on Blood Loss During Posterior Spinal Fusion

Vol: 73| Issue: 1| Number:2| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:1

Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel (USBS) Does Not Reduce Blood Loss During Posterior Spinal Fusion (PSF) in Patients with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS): Randomized Clinical Trial.

Spine. 2021 Jul 1;46(13): 845-851.

Contributing Authors:
S Garg J Thomas H Darland E Kim J Kittelson M Erickson P Carry

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

OE EXCLUSIVE

Synopsis

Sixty-six patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) undergoing a posterior spinal fusion were randomized to receive bone resection during the operation using an ultrasonic bone scalpel (n=33) or a standard osteotomy (n=33). The primary outcome of interest was the estimated blood loss per level. Secondary outcomes of interest included the incidence of complications, blood transfusion rate...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue