Preclinical Comparison of Thermal Tissue Effects from Traditional Electrosurgery and a Low-Temperature Electrosurgical Device during Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background: Exposure of the anterior cervical spine requires dissection in proximity to critical neurovascular structures. Monopolar electrosurgical (ES) devices generate heat in contacted tissues, resulting in thermal damage and temperature change. This study examined depth of thermal injury and temperature change associated with use of a low-temperature electrosurgical device (LTD) compared to traditional electrosurgery during a cadaveric anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) dissection. Methods: ACDF was performed, using ES or LTD, on cervical spines (C3-4 and C4-5) from 2 fresh human cadavers with intact neck soft tissues and no history of surgery. Cadavers were maintained at 22–23°C, and fiber-optic temperature sensors (Neoptix, Québec City, Québec, Canada) were placed near relevant structures to measure changes during dissection. Depth of thermal injury was assessed by hematoxylin and eosin and Masson9s trichrome histology of fixed tissue specimens. Results: Use of the LTD resulted in a statistically significant reduction in temperature change at platysma (3.0 ± 1.04 vs. 11.41 ± 3.10°C, P = .003), carotid sheath (7.32 ± 1.13 vs. 15.57 ± 2.56°C, P = .007), and longus colli (6.11 ± 1.32 vs. 12.9 ± 3.62°C, P = .016) compared to ES. Temperature change at the trachea was similar between groups (6.06 ± 1.99 vs. 4.96 ± 1.89°C, P = .528). Histology showed that LTD produced less mean and maximal depth of thermal injury compared to ES (mean: 0.5 vs. 1.2 mm; max: 0.9 vs. 1.8 mm; P < .05). Conclusions: The results of this pilot study demonstrate that anterior cervical spine exposure using an LTD reduces tissue temperature change and depth of thermal injury compared to ES. Clinical Relevance: Although exploratory, these results suggest that use of an LTD during ACDF may reduce the extent of thermal tissue injury during dissection. Future studies in live animal models are warranted to determine if thermal injury is a potential cause of common exposure-related complications, such as dysphagia and dysphonia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".