Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
N/A N=190 Randomized Double-blind Treatment

Comparison of Ultrasonic Osteotome and Conventional Drill Osteotome

Arthrodesis

Enrolled (actual)
190
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Mar 2025
Primary outcome: Primary: Number of Participants With Bone Fusion — 43; 60 Participants

Study Design & Population

Study type
Interventional
Phase
N/A
Interventions
ultrasonic osteotome (Device); drill (Device)
Age
Adult, Older Adult · 20+ yrs
Sex
All
Sponsor
Seoul National University Hospital
Primary completion
Feb 2018

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Number of Participants With Bone Fusion
43; 60
SECONDARY
Bleeding Amount
159.6; 227.4
SECONDARY
Fracture of Laminar
23; 25
SECONDARY
Neck Pain/Arm Pain
2.15; 1.96; 3.02; 2.39
SECONDARY
Functional Outcome
11.30; 10.79

Summary

Ultrasonic bone osteotome has been utilized in various surgical field, but the use in neurosurgery especially in spine surgery is not widely spread. In the present study, the investigators are going to compare bony fusion rate after cervical laminotomy either with ultrasonic osteotome or conventional drill.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • cervical myelopathy at 3 or more levels due to spondylosis, congenital stenosis, or OPLL;
  • aged more than 20 years
  • with American Society of Anesthesiology physical status class 1 or 2

Exclusion Criteria

  • concomitant neurological disease such as cerebral palsy or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; 2) concurrent cancer or infection; 3) previous cervical spinal surgery; 4) a trauma-associated lesion; 5) inability to be followed up (i.e., foreign patients); 6) refusal to participate in the study
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02487901). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.

Back to search