Moving toward Regional Anaesthesia for Spine Surgery – Need of the Hour

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics | Vol 7 | Issue 2 |  Jul-Dec 2022 | page: 38-42 | Samidha Waradkar , Aaliya Mehmood , Saijyot Raut , Vishal Kundnani

DOI: 10.13107/jcorth.2022.v07i02.527

Author: Samidha Waradkar [1], Aaliya Mehmood [2], Saijyot Raut [3], Vishal Kundnani [4]

[1] Consultant Anesthesiology, at Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, India,
[2] Senior Resident Anesthesiology at Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, India,
[3] MS Ortho, Consultant Spine Surgeon at Spine Centre, Andheri and SL Raheja Hospital, Mahim, Mumbai, India,
[4] MS Ortho, Consultant Spine Surgeon at Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, India.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Aaliya Mehmood,
Flat 701, A-8, Al-Quba CHS, Millat Nagar, Andheri West, Mumbai 400053, India.


Background: In the last few decades, many studies have been conducted on comparison between general anaesthesia (GA) versus spinal anaesthesia (SA) for lumbar spine surgeries and each have reported discrepancies between the two methods of induction with equivalent pros and cons; ultimately failing to state a final conclusive method. With the ongoing COVID pandemic, and the fear of aerosol generation associated with GA; our focus has shifted on regional anesthesia completely, as it is been proven safer and more hassle-free to conduct during these challenging times.

Materials and Methods: A similar case study was conducted with 178 patients posted for lumbar spine procedures under the same surgeon. Wherein, 86 received GA and 92 SA. Appropriate statistical analysis was applied to identify differences in blood loss, operative time, time from entering the operating room (OR) until incision, time from bandage placement to exiting the OR, total anesthesia time, PACU time, and total hospital stay. Secondary outcomes of interest included incidence of postoperative spinal hematoma and death, incidence of paraparesis, paraplegia, paraesthesia, post-Dural puncture headache, signs of meningism, urinary retention, and other perioperative complications among the SA patients.

Results: SA was associated with significantly lower operative time, blood loss, total anaesthesia time, time from entering the OR until incision, time from bandage placement until exiting the OR. SA was also associated with shorter stay in the PACU, and overall lesser total duration of hospital stay. None of the 92 patients in SA group needed conversion to GA or had an episode of high/complete sympathetic blockade. No incidences of paraparesis or paraplegia, or episodes of persistent post-operative paraesthesia or weakness, Bagai (vasovagal) syncope, PONV, post-op meningism, post-dural puncture headache, spinal hematoma, intraoperative dural Cerebrospinal Fluid leak or post-op fistula, were noted. There were two incidences of failed spinal which were easily managed with a lower dose repeat SA. Overall better post-op analgesia and higher patient and surgeon satisfaction compared to GA was observed.

Conclusion: SA is effective for use in patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgeries and very efficient alternative technique to GA. SA offers efficient OR functioning with decreasing overall operation theatre time and shown to be the more convenient anesthetic choice in the perioperative setting.

Keywords: Spinal Anaesthesia, Regional Anaesthesia, Covid-19, Spine Surgery, Lumbar Discectomy, Fast Track Anaesthesia, Aerosol Generation


1. Demirel CB, Kalayci M, Ozkocak I, Altunkaya H, Ozer Y, Acikgoz B. A prospective randomized study comparing perioperative outcome variables after epidural or general anesthesia for lumbar disc surgery. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2003;15:185–192.
2. De Rojas JO, Syre P, Welch WC. Regional anesthesia versus general anesthesia for surgery on the lumbar spine: a review of the modern literature. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2014;119:39–43.
3. Pflug AE, Halter JB. Effect of spinal anesthesia on adrenergic tone and the neuroendocrine responses to surgical stress in humans. Anesthesiology. 1981;55:120–126
4. Rodgers A, Walker N, Schug S, McKee A, Kehlet H, van Zundert A, et al. Reduction of postoperative mortality and morbidity with epidural or spinal anaesthesia: results from overview of randomised trials. BMJ. 2000;321(7275):1493.
5. McLain RF, Bell GR, Kalfas I, Tetzlaff JE, Yoon HJ. Complications associated with lumbar laminectomy: a comparison of spinal versus general anesthesia. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29:2542–2547.
6. McLain RF, Tetzlaff JE, Bell GR, Uwe-Lewandrowski K, Yoon HJ, Rana M. Microdiscectomy: spinal anesthesia offers optimal results in general patient population. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2007;16:5–11.
7. Available at:
8. Scott NB, Kehlet H. Regional anaesthesia and surgical morbidity. Br J Surg. 1988;75(4):299–304.
9. Attari MA, Mirhosseini SA, Honarmand A, Safavi MR. Spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for elective lumbar spine surgery: a randomized clinical trial. J Res Med Sci. 2011;16:524–529.
10. Brown MJ. Anesthesia for elective spine surgery in adults. 2015. Available from: Accessed July 26, 2017.
11. Modig J, Karlstrom G. Intra- and post-operative blood loss and haemodynamics in total hip replacement when performed under lumbar epidural versus general anaesthesia. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1987;4(5):345–55.
12. Urwin SC, Parker MJ, Griffiths R. General versus regional anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84(4):450–5.
13. Indelli PF, Grant SA, Nielsen K, Vail TP. Regional anesthesia in hip surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:250–5.
14. Sakura S. Epidural anesthesia and spinal anesthesia in the elderly. Masui. 2007;56(2):130–8. [In Japanese].
15. Kao FC, Tsai TT, Chen LH, et al. Symptomatic epidural hematoma after lumbar decompression surgery. Eur Spine
J. 2015;24:348–357.


How to Cite this article: Waradkar S, Mehmood A, Raut S, Kundnani V. Moving toward Regional
Anesthesia for Spine Surgery – Need of the Hour. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics Jul-Dec 2022;7(2):38-42.

 (Abstract    Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)

Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel and Its Role In Spine Surgeries : An Article Review

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics | Vol 7 | Issue 1 |  Jan-Jun 2022 | page: 20-27| TausifAhmed Shikalgar, Priyank Patel, Abhay Nene, Shubhanshu Bhaladhare, Sanjay Puri, Manojkumar Gaddiker


Author: TausifAhmed Shikalgar [1], Priyank Patel [1], Abhay Nene [1], Shubhanshu Bhaladhare [1], Sanjay Puri [1], Manojkumar Gaddiker [1]

[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400050, India


Address of Correspondence
Dr. Tausif Ahmed Shikalgar,
Fellow Spine Surgery, Under Dr. Abhay Nene, Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050, Maharashtra, India.


The past few decades have seen tremendous improvement in the field of spine surgery. Spine surgery involves a number of procedures from simple laminectomy to deformity correction. This requires high surgical skills and care, which is achieved by a number of instruments, which, in turn, protect surgeons from committing complications. Recent advancements in spine surgery include ultrasonic bone scalpel, which cut bone accurately and precisely. It is a unique surgical device which offers a controlled osteotomy which slices the hard bone while the soft tissues remain largely unaffected. The major benefits of using this modern instrument are the soft-tissue sparing, controlled cutting, reduced bleeding, and thereby increasing the effectiveness. The aim of this article is to summarize its uses in current practice of spine surgeons and to focus on its advantages and complications associated with uses of this device.

Keywords: Ultrasonic bone scalpel, spine surgery, complications, safety, osteotomy


  1. Walker CT, Kakarla UK, Chang SW, Sonntag VK. History and advances in spinal neurosurgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2019;31:775-85.
  2. Grochulla F, Vieweg U. Surgical motor systems in spinal surgery. In: Vieweg U, Grochulla F, editors. Manual of Spine Surgery. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2012. p. 69-74.
  3. Bydon M, Macki M, Xu R, Ain MC, Ahn ES, Jallo GI. Spinal decompression in achondroplastic patients using high-speed drill versus ultrasonic bone curette: Technical note and outcomes in 30 cases. J Pediatr Orthop 2014;34:780-6.
  4. Nasser R, Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, Harrop JS, Anderson DG, Vaccaro AR, et al. Complications in spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;13:14457.
  5. Ratliff JK, Lebude B, Albert T, Anene-Maidoh T, Anderson G, Dagostino P, et al. Complications in spinal surgery: Comparative survey of spine surgeons and patients who underwent spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2009;10:578-84.
  6. Nakase H, Matsuda R, Shin Y, Park YS, Sakaki T. The use of ultrasonic bone curettes in spinal surgery. Acta Neurochir 2006;148:207-12; discussion 212-3.
  7. Nakagawa H, Kim SD, Mizuno J, Ohara Y, Ito K. Technical advantages of an ultrasonic bone curette in spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2005;2:431-5.
  8. Pakzaban P. BoneScalpelTM Ultrasonic Bone Cutting System: Neurosurgical and Orthopaedic Applications, Aesculap Power Systems; 2012.
  9. BoneScalpel TM Ultrasonic Bone Dissector: Applications in Spine Surgery and Surgical Technique Guide.
  10. Moon RD, Srikandarajah N, Clark S, Wilby MJ, Pigott TD. Primary lumbar decompression using ultrasonic bone curette compared to conventional technique. Br J Neurosurg 2021;35:775-9.
  11. Hu X, Ohnmeiss DD, Lieberman IH. Use of an ultrasonic osteotome device in spine surgery: Experience from the first 128 patients. Eur Spine J 2013;22:2845-9.
  12. Hazer DB, Yaşar B, Rosberg HE, Akbaş A. Technical aspects on the use of ultrasonic bone shaver in spine surgery: Experience in 307 patients. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016:8428530.
  13. Bydon M, Xu R, Papademetriou K, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, Witham TF, et al. Safety of spinal decompression using an ultra-sonic bone curette compared with a high-speed drill: Outcomes in 337 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;18:627-33.
  14. Al-Mahfoudh R, Mitchell PS, Wilby M, Crooks D, Barrett C, Pillay R, et al. Management of giant calcified thoracic disks and description of the trench vertebrectomy technique. Glob Spine J 2016;6:584-91.
  15. Dave BR, Krishnan A, Rai RR, Degulmadi D, Mayi S, Gudhe M. The effectiveness and safety of ultrasonic bone scalpel versus conventional method in cervical laminectomy: A retrospective study of 311 patients. Glob Spine J 2020;10:760-6.
  16. Li K, Zhang W, Li B, Xu H, Li Z, Luo D, et al. Safety and efficacy of cervical laminoplasty using a piezosurgery device compared with a high-speed drill. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e4913.
  17. Onen MR, Yuvruk E, Akay S, Naderi S, The reliability of the ultrasonic bone scalpel in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: A comparative study of 46 patients. World Neurosurg 2015;84:1962-7.
  18. Al-Mahfoudh R, Qattan E, Ellenbogen JR, Wilby M, Barrett C, Pigott T. Applications of the ultrasonic bone cutter in spinal surgery our preliminary experience. Br J Neurosurg 2014;28:56-60.
  19. Shousha M, El-Saghir H, Boehm H. Corpectomy of the fifth lumbar vertebra, a challenging procedure. J Spinal Disord Tech 2014;27:347-51.
  20. Hu SS. Blood loss in adult spinal surgery. Eur Spine J 2004;13Suppl 1:S3-5.
  21. Dave BR, Degulmadi D, Dahibhate S, Krishnan A, Patel D. Ultrasonic bone scalpel: Utility in cervical corpectomy. A technical note. Eur Spine J 2019;28:380-5.
  22. Jenis LG, An HS. Spine update. Lumbar foraminal stenosis. Spine 2000;25:389-94.
  23. Morimoto D, Isu T, Kim K, Sugawara A, Matsumoto R, Isobe M. Microsurgical medial fenestration with an ultrasonic bone curette for lumbar foraminal stenosis. J Nippon Med Sch 2012;79:327-34.
  24. Chen HT, Hsu CC, Lu ML, Chen SH, Chen JM, Wu RW. Effects of combined use of ultrasonic bone scalpel and hemostatic matrix on perioperative blood loss and surgical duration in degenerative thoracolumbar spine surgery. Biomed Res Int 2019;2019:6286528.
  25. Hamburger C. T-laminoplasty-a surgical approach for cervicalspondylotic myelopathy. Technical note. Acta Neurochir  1995;132:131-3.
  26. Herman JM, Sonntag VK. Cervical corpectomy and plate fixation for postlaminectomy kyphosis. J Neurosurg 1994;80:963-70.
  27. Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, Suzuki N, Satomi K, Ishii Y. Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine 1983;8:693-9.
  28. Ito K, Ishizaka S, Sasaki T, Miyahara T, Horiuchi T, Sakai K, et al. Safe and minimally invasive laminoplastic laminotomy using an ultrasonic bone curette for spinal surgery: Technical note. Surg Neurol 2009;72:470-5 discussion 475.
  29.  Park AE, Heller JG. Cervical laminoplasty: Use of a novel titanium plate to maintain canal expansion-surgical technique. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004;17:265-71.
  30. Matsuoka H, Itoh Y, Numazawa S, Tomii M, Watanabe K, Hirano Y, et al. Recapping hemilaminoplasty for spinal surgical disorders using ultrasonic bone curette. Surg Neurol Int 2012;3:70.
  31. Parker SL, Kretzer RM, Recinos PF, Molina CA, Wolinsky JP, Jallo GI, et al. Ultrasonic BoneScalpel for osteoplastic laminoplasty in the resection of intradural spinal pathology: Case series and technical note. Neurosurgery 2013;73 Suppl Operative 1:ons61-6.
  32. Barbanera A, Serchi E, Fiorenza V, Nina P, Andreoli A. Giant calcified thoracic herniated disc: Considerations aiming a proper surgical strategy. J Neurosurg Sci 2009;53:19-25 discussion 25-6.
  33. Okada Y, Shimizu K, Ido K, Kotani S. Multiple thoracic disc herniations: Case report and review of the literature. Spinal Cord 1997;35:183-6.
  34. Cornips EM, Janssen ML, Beuls EA. Thoracic disc herniation and acute myelopathy: Clinical presentation, neuroimaging findings, surgical considerations, and outcome. J Neurosurg. Spine 2011;14:520-8.
  35. Hott JS, Feiz-Erfan I, Kenny K, Dickman CA. Surgical management of giant herniated thoracic discs: Analysis of 20 cases. J  eurosurg Spine 2005;3:191-7.
  36. Wahlquist S, Nelson S, Glivar P. Effect of the ultrasonic bone scalpel on blood loss during pediatric spinal deformity correction surgery. Spine Deform 2019;7:582-7.
  37. Garg S, Thomas J, Darland H, Kim E, Kittelson J, Erickson M, et al. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 2021;46:845-51.
  38. Kim K, Isu T, Matsumoto R, Isobe M, Kogure K. Surgical pitfalls of an ultrasonic bone curette (Sonopet) in spinal surgery. Oper Neurosurg 2006;59 Suppl 4:ONS-390; discussion ONS393.
  39. Brooks AT, Nelson CL, Stewart CL, Skinner RA, Siems ML. Effect of an ultrasonic device on temperatures generated in bone and on bone-cement structure. J Arthroplast 1993;8:413-8.
  40. Gleizal A, Bera JC, Lavandier B, Beziat JL. Piezoelectric osteotomy: A new technique for bone surgery advantages in craniofacial surgery. Childs Nerv Syst 2007;23:509-13.


How to Cite this article: Shikalgar TA, Patel P, Nene A, Bhaladhare S, Puri S, Gaddikeri M. Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel and its Role in Spine Surgeries: An Article Review. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics Jan-Jun 2022;7(1):20-27.

 (Abstract    Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)

Surgical site infection following spine surgery

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics | Vol 4 | Issue 2 |  July-Dec 2019 | page:38-44 | Dr. Kshitij Chaudhary, Dr. Gautam Zaveri

Author: Kshitij Chaudhary [1], Gautam Zaveri [1]

[1] Sir HN Reliance Foundation Hospital and Research Center, Mumbai
[2] Department of Spine Surgery, Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Kshitij Chaudhary
Sir HN Reliance Foundation Hospital and Research Center, Mumbai


Surgical site infection in spine surgery is a devastating complication not only from a medical perspective but also from an economic standpoint. Early detection and debridement are necessary, especially if one has to retain the instrumentation. In late infection, if the fusion is confirmed, implant exit can be performed to better treat the infection. The current review focuses on the decision making in Surgical site infections in Spine Surgery
Keywords: Surgical site infection, Spine Surgery, implant


1. Fang C, Wong T-M, To KK, Wong SS, Lau T-W, Leung F. Infection after fracture osteosynthesis – Part II. J Orthop Surg. 2017;25(1):230949901769271.
2. Falagas ME, Karageorgopoulos DE. Pandrug Resistance (PDR), Extensive Drug Resistance (XDR), and Multidrug Resistance (MDR) among Gram‐Negative Bacilli: Need for International Harmonization in Terminology. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(7):1121-1122.
3. Willenegger H, Roth B. [Treatment tactics and late results in early infection following osteosynthesis]. Unfallchirurgie 1986;12:241–246.
4. Trampuz A, Zimmerli W. Diagnosis and treatment of infections associated with
fracture-fixation devices. Injury 2006;37:S59–S66.
5. W.J. Metsemakers et al. Infection after Fracture Fixation: Current surgical and microbiological concepts. Injury, Int. J. Care Injured 49 (2018) 511–522
6. Steinmetz et al. Infection after Fracture Fixation. EFORT Open Rev 2019; 4: 468-475.

How to Cite this article: Chaudhary K, Zaveri G. Surgical site infection following spine surgery. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics July-Dec 2019;4(2):38-44.

(Abstract    Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)