Journal archive · Dorsum and hump · 2025
Adverse Events Associated With Ultrasonic Bone Saws
Pasick LJ, Pyle MP, Palicki I, Gadkaree SK.
In the archive as a landmark paper: the core sweep runs 2011–2026, and this one is here because the history of rhinoplasty rests on it · cited on piezo rhinoplasty.
Abstract
Objectives: To classify device- and patient-related events associated with the use of ultrasonic bone saws.
Methods: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database was queried for medical device reports from January 2014 through June 2024. The search included the following terms: "piezo saw," "piezoelectric," "piezosurgery," and "sonopet." Medical device reports for Piezosurgery (Mectron, Carasco, Italy) and Sonopet Ultrasonic Bone Aspirator (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI) were analyzed and data extracted.
Results: In total, 673 reports were reviewed and 432 were included for analysis, 64 and 368 of which involved Piezosurgery and Sonopet, respectively. The most common device-related events were inability to irrigate (n = 186), overheating or melting of the device (n = 148), and fracture of the insert tip (n = 58). Due to malfunctions, 18 clinically significant case delays and 1 case abortion were reported. Patient-related events occurred in 31 cases, resulting in 15 morbidities. The most common patient injury was thermal burn (n = 13) followed by iatrogenic foreign body (n = 8). Patient-related events resulted in conservative treatment in 10 cases and further surgical intervention in 7 cases.
Conclusions: Ultrasonic bone saws are used increasingly in place of oscillating saws and conventional osteotomies for craniomaxillofacial and rhinoplasty surgery. Understanding the risks of device overheating or fracture, and the associated risk of thermal burn or iatrogenic foreign body may help surgeons improve the safe use of these devices.
Abstract as indexed by PubMed; the article is open access (PubMed Central).
Citation
Start here
What the rhinoplasty literature says on this paper's topic, cited line by line to PubMed.
Related papers
Same topic, 2025.
- ASJ Crowdsourced Assessment of Aesthetic Outcomes of Dorsal Preservation RhinoplastyAlford JA, McCleary S, Roostaeian J2025PMID 39498873Summary
- ASJ Optimizing Closed-Approach Preservation Rhinoplasty by Ultrasonic Piezo-assisted Techniques for Enhanced PrecisionGuilarte R, Malzone G2025PMID 39812015Summary
- ASJ Radiological and Anatomical Parameters as Determinants of Success in Dorsal Preservation RhinoplastyKemal Ö, Tahir E, Çolak O et al.2025PMID 40179243Summary
- ASJ Scalpel vs Electrocautery for Upper Lateral Cartilage Contouring in Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Retrospective Comparative StudyŞibar S, Erdal AI, Okutan MT2025PMID 40972537Summary
- ASJO A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Autologous vs Irradiated Homologous Costal Cartilage Grafts for Dorsal Augmentation RhinoplastyLiyanage D, Vayalapra S, Murdeshwar H et al.2025PMID 39896219Full text
- APS A New Tool to Determine the Accurate Lateral Osteotomy Line in Rhinoplasty with PiezosurgeryGuliyev M2025PMID 38926251Full text
- APS Combining Piezo and Power Tools for a Better Outcome in Hybrid Structural-Preservation RhinoplastyRobotti E, Khazaal A, Leone F et al.2025PMID 39117869Summary
- APS Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes Between Dorsal Preservation and Conventional Dorsal Hump Reduction Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisKim DH, Jang DW, Hwang SH2025PMID 40195129Summary