| Literature DB >> 28253289 |
Bianca F Hettlich1, Laurie Cook1, Cheryl London1, Geoffrey T Fosgate2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess feasibility of the harmonic Osteovue blade (HOB) for use in the soft tissue approach for dogs undergoing hemilaminectomy and to compare outcomes between dogs undergoing HOB or traditional approach (TRAD).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28253289 PMCID: PMC5333832 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172822
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Harmonic Osteovue blade set-up.
A: photographs of the generator, foot switch and hand piece (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.). B: photographs of the harmonic Osteovue blade (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.) showing the spade-like and curved shape of the blade tip.
Comparison of various preoperative factors between dogs undergoing thoracolumbar spinal decompressive surgery for intervertebral disk extrusion selected for Harmonic Osteovue Blade (HOB; n = 10) versus traditional surgical approach (TRAD; n = 10).
| Variable | HOB | TRAD | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Range | Median | Range | ||
| Weight (kg) | 8.7 | 4.1, 29.1 | 6.8 | 4.0, 18.2 | 0.393 |
| Age (months) | 80 | 30, 118 | 68 | 53, 144 | 0.684 |
| Neurologic grade | 3.5 | 2, 4 | 2.5 | 1, 3 | 0.075 |
| Pain score | 6 | 1, 9 | 3.5 | 2, 7 | 0.052 |
| Pain VAS | 3.4 | 1.0, 7.5 | 2.0 | 0.7, 4.5 | 0.079 |
| QOL (questionnaire) | 3.3 | 2.7, 4.4 | 2.8 | 2.5, 4.1 | 0.200 |
| QOL VAS | 2.6 | 2.1, 3.7 | 1.4 | 0, 7.5 | 0.570 |
| Owner perceived function | 4 | 2, 4 | 4 | 1, 4 | 0.481 |
QOL = quality of life.
VAS = visual analog scale. QOL = quality of life.
* Based on chi-square or Fisher exact tests for categorical data and Mann-Whitney U tests for quantitative data comparing dogs with HOB and TRAD.
Quantitative comparisons of various perioperative factors between dogs undergoing thoracolumbar spinal decompressive surgery for intervertebral disk extrusion using either Harmonic Osteovue Blade (HOB; n = 10) or traditional surgical approach (TRAD; n = 10).
| Variable | HOB | TRAD | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | IQR | Median | IQR | ||
| Approach length (mm) | 56 | 40, 90 | 60 | 45, 70 | 0.280 |
| Duration (min) | |||||
| Approach | 7 | 5, 12 | 8 | 5, 13 | 0.315 |
| Hemilaminectomy | 47 | 35, 63 | 42 | 20, 62 | 0.165 |
| Closure | 8.5 | 8, 15 | 10 | 6, 15 | 0.853 |
| Total | 65 | 48, 80 | 58 | 36, 79 | 0.353 |
| Blood loss | |||||
| Total (ml) | 0 | 0, 9 | 2.2 | 0, 6.8 | 0.165 |
| ml per kg | 0 | 0, 0.9 | 0.4 | 0, 1.1 | 0.063 |
| PCV (%) | |||||
| Pre-operative | 52 | 45, 61 | 50 | 45, 55 | 0.579 |
| Post-operative | 39 | 32, 44 | 40 | 34, 44 | 0.408 |
| Change in PCV | 16 | 1, 22 | 9 | 1, 17 | 0.122 |
| Total protein (mg/dl) | |||||
| Pre-operative | 7.1 | 6.0, 8.2 | 7.2 | 6.3, 8.0 | 0.796 |
| Post-operative | 6.2 | 5.6, 7.0 | 6.0 | 5.7, 6.6 | 0.696 |
| Change in TP | 1.1 | -1, 1.6 | 1.0 | 0.3, 2.0 | 0.897 |
| Hospitalization (days) | 2 | 2, 3 | 2 | 2, 5 | 0.631 |
IQR = interquartile range.
*Based on Mann-Whitney U tests.
Qualitative comparisons of various postoperative factors between dogs undergoing thoracolumbar spinal decompressive surgery for intervertebral disk extrusion using either Harmonic Osteovue Blade (HOB; n = 10) or traditional surgical approach (TRAD; n = 10).
| Variable | HOB | TRAD | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median (n) | IQR | Median (n) | IQR | ||
| Change in neurologic grade relative to preop | |||||
| At discharge | 1 | -1, 2 | 0 | -1, 1 | 0.029 |
| 10 day follow-up | 1.5 | 0, 3 | 0 | -1, 1 | 0.029 |
| 30 day follow-up | 2 | 0, 4 | 1 | 0, 1 | 0.079 |
| Change in pain scores relative to preop | |||||
| At discharge | 6.0 | 0.5, 8.0 | 2.8 | 1.0, 6.0 | 0.029 |
| 10 day follow-up | 4.5 | 0, 8.5 | 2.3 | 0.5, 7.0 | 0.089 |
| 30 day follow-up | 6.0 | 1.0, 8.0 | 3.0 | 1.5, 6.0 | 0.017 |
| Change in pain VAS relative to preop | |||||
| At discharge | 3.2 | 1.0, 7.1 | 1.7 | -0.8, 4.0 | 0.043 |
| 10 day follow-up | 3.3 | 1.0, 7.0 | 1.6 | -0.1, 2.4 | 0.007 |
| 30 day follow-up | 3.3 | 1.0, 7.4 | 1.7 | 0, 2.5 | 0.013 |
| Incision healing score | |||||
| Day 1 | 2.0 | 1.0, 2.5 | 1.8 | 0, 4.0 | 0.393 |
| Day 2 | 1.0 | 0, 2.0 | 0.5 | 0, 4.0 | 0.353 |
| Day 3 | 0.5 | 0.5, 1.0 | 0.5 | 0, 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Day 10 follow-up | 0 | 0, 2.0 | 0 | 0, 0.5 | 0.436 |
| Day 30 follow-up | 0 | 0, 0.5 | 0 | 0, 0 | 0.720 |
| QOL VAS | |||||
| Day 10 follow-up | 7.7 | 5.4, 10.0 | 6.7 | 2.0, 9.6 | 0.237 |
| Day 30 follow-up | 9.1 | 7.7, 10.0 | 8.9 | 0, 10.0 | 0.888 |
| QOL (questionnaire) | |||||
| Day 10 follow-up | 4.4 | 2.8, 5.0 | 4.3 | 2.4, 4.9 | 0.720 |
| Day 30 follow-up | 4.8 | 3.8, 5.0 | 5.0 | 2.8, 5.0 | 0.436 |
| Owner perceived function | |||||
| Day 10 follow-up | 1 | 1, 2 | 1.5 | 1, 2 | 0.442 |
| Day 30 Follow-up | 1 | 1, 2 | 1 | 1, 4 | 1.0 |
IQR = interquartile range. VAS = visual analog scale. QOL = quality of life.
*Based on Mann-Whitney U tests.