Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 May 15;15(1):16864.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-01769-7.

Evaluation of a novel high speed burr tip for safe and efficient bone surgery in a sheep model

Affiliations

Evaluation of a novel high speed burr tip for safe and efficient bone surgery in a sheep model

Nuutti Vartiainen et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

The exposure of neural structures by removing the overlying bone using a high-speed drill can cause iatrogenic injury to the dura, neural tissue, and vessels. We investigated the safety and efficacy of a novel Surgify Safety Burr (SSB), attachable to existing high-speed drills. Three anesthetized living sheep underwent cranial burr hole drilling (n = 19) and hemilaminectomies (n = 14) with the SSB and standard burrs. Drilling time, dural injury, and subjective evaluation of heating and haptic feedback of each burr were assessed. Cranial burr hole drilling was done using diamond (n = 3), fluted (n = 6), and SSB (n = 10) burrs. Penetrating dura damage was observed in 33% of the diamond burr drilled holes, and in 33% of the fluted burr drilled holes, but not in the holes drilled with the SSB. Hemilaminectomies were performed with the SSB (n = 7) and diamond (n = 7) burrs without drilling-induced dura damage. Mean drilling time was not significantly different in cranial drilling (SSB, 121 ± 18s; fluted burr, 63 ± 22s; diamond burr, 165 ± 29s) nor in hemilaminectomy (SSB, 108 ± 13s; diamond burr, 95 ± 18s). Subjective evaluation of the SSB suggested efficient bone removal without heating or chattering. The SSB is a safe and effective surgical tool in cranial drilling and hemilaminectomy procedures. Safety, efficacy, and clinical benefits should be established in human studies.

Keywords: Burr; Dural tear; High-speed drill; New technology; Soft tissue injury; Surgical instrument.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Competing interests: Esa-Pekka Pälvimäki has received a consult honoraria from Surgify Medical Oy. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. This study was financially supported by Surgify Medical Oy and co-funded by the European Union. Open access funded by Helsinki University Library. Ethics approval: All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. A study protocol was prepared before the study. Ethical and research approval for this study was acquired from the Regional State Administrative Agency for Southern Finland, permit number ESAVl/30519/2019.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
(A) The Surgify Safety Burr (SSB), including a (B) description showing the parts and differential modes in bone cutting and soft tissue protection mode, and (C) a detailed scheme of the different positions of the moving ring where the tool is not in contact with hard tissue/bone (left), and when it is pressed against soft tissue (right). The length of the burr shaft is 85 mm (medium version) and 140 mm (long version) and the diameter of the burr head is 5.4 mm.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Cranial burr holes from sheep. Tears are referred by the following symbols: X: penetrating dura lesion with high-speed burr; Xm: penetrating mucosa lesion with high speed burr; x: superficial dura lesion with high speed burr; k: dura lesion with Kerrison punch. Holes were drilled with (a) the SSB (1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 19); (b) the fluted burr (4, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 18); and (c) the diamond burr (2, 5, and 8).

Similar articles

References

    1. Cammisa, F. P. et al. Incidental durotomy in spine surgery. Spine25, 2663–2667 (2000). - PubMed
    1. Williams, B. J. et al. Incidence of unintended durotomy in spine surgery based on 108,478 cases. Neurosurgery68, 117–123 (2011). discussion 123–124. - PubMed
    1. Strömqvist, F., Sigmundsson, F. G., Strömqvist, B., Jönsson, B. & Karlsson, M. K. Incidental durotomy in degenerative lumbar spine surgery - a register study of 64,431 operations. Spine J. Off J. North. Am. Spine Soc.19, 624–630 (2019). - PubMed
    1. Ghobrial, G. M. et al. Unintended durotomy in lumbar degenerative spinal surgery: a 10-year systematic review of the literature. Neurosurg. Focus. 39, E8 (2015). - PubMed
    1. Sharma, A. et al. Incidence of dural tears in open versus minimally invasive spine surgery: A Single-Center prospective study. Asian Spine J.16, 463–470 (2022). - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources