ODM Acceptable Micro Punch Forceps for Lumbar Transforaminal Endoscopy Instruments

ODM Acceptable Micro Punch Forceps for Lumbar Transforaminal Endoscopy Instruments

1 Introduction:
If you are looking for minimally invasive surgery medical instruments with good quality, competitive price and reliable service. Wanhe medical is manufaturing these for you. We provide general and professional laparoscopic instruments with CE, FDA approved.

2 Specifications
1 Adopt optinum stainless steel material
2 Corrosion resistant
3 Tough construction
4 Light weight and easy operation
5 Economic price and optimum quality

3 Packing & Shipping:

FAQ

Are minimally invasive orthopedic surgical instruments suitable for all types of orthopedic surgeries?

Minimally invasive orthopedic surgical instruments are not suitable for all types of orthopedic surgeries. According to, Shanghai minimally invasive orthopedic expert Yang Weiquan pointed out that not all spinal diseases can be treated with minimally invasive surgery, and specific cases should be analyzed. For example, spinal tumors, severe spinal fractures, severe spinal deformities, etc. are not suitable for minimally invasive treatment. This shows that minimally invasive surgery has its strict indications and limitations.

Further, it is mentioned in that minimally invasive internal fixation (MIO) is a widely used technology, but it is not suitable for all surgical situations. For complex instability, simple transverse radial shaft fractures, forearm fractures, distal radius fractures, and ankle torsion fractures, traditional open internal fixation (ORIF) is the best treatment method. This once again emphasizes that minimally invasive surgery is not suitable for all types of orthopedic surgeries.

Therefore, it can be concluded that minimally invasive orthopedic surgical instruments are not suitable for all types of orthopedic surgeries, and their application needs to be selected and judged according to the specific condition and surgical needs.

What are the specific standards for the indications of minimally invasive orthopedic surgical instruments?

The specific criteria for the indications of minimally invasive orthopedic surgical instruments can be analyzed from multiple perspectives, including diseases in different parts of the joints, spine and pelvis. The following are detailed indication criteria:

Joints:

Minimally invasive orthopedic surgical instruments can be used for the diagnosis and treatment of joints such as the knee, shoulder, hip, wrist, and fingers (toes).
Common arthroscopic equipment includes monitors, camera systems, light sources, planing hosts, etc., which are suitable for minimally invasive treatment of various joint diseases.
Spine:

UBE technology (endoscopic technology) can be applied to common intervertebral disc herniation, extreme lateral disc herniation, central spinal canal stenosis, lateral recess stenosis, intervertebral foraminal stenosis, degenerative slip (BE-TLIF), lumbar revision cases, etc.
This technology requires a dedicated endoscope system, high-definition endoscope camera system and electric bone tissue surgery system to ensure the smooth progress of the operation.
Pelvis:

The indications for minimally invasive surgery of pelvic fractures have increased significantly, especially with the development of various auxiliary reduction instruments, many severely displaced pelvic fractures can achieve good closed reduction and minimally invasive fixation of the pelvic ring.
This type of surgery also involves detailed preoperative evaluation, postoperative treatment and rehabilitation.
Others:

The third generation of minimally invasive hallux valgus surgery requires special tools and instruments, such as conventional C-arm or mini C-arm imaging equipment, dedicated MIS power system, small curette and micro periosteal stripper.
When using surgical fusion equipment, the patient should have good condition, neurovascular condition, skin coverage and sufficient bone volume.
In summary, the indications of minimally invasive orthopedic surgical instruments cover a wide range of orthopedic diseases, from joints to spine to pelvis, and each part has its specific indications and contraindications.

What types of spinal tumors are best treated with minimally invasive surgery?

Minimally invasive surgical treatment of spinal tumors is suitable for many types of tumors, but the specific choice depends on the type, size, location of the tumor and the overall condition of the patient. The following are several types of spinal tumors suitable for minimally invasive surgery:

Primary spinal tumors:

Hemangioma: Most benign hemangiomas do not require treatment, but more aggressive hemangiomas may require surgical resection.
Aneurysmal bone cyst: This type of tumor often invades the posterior column of the vertebral body, affecting the success rate of surgery. Therefore, it is necessary to choose an appropriate treatment plan based on the specific situation.
Metastatic spinal tumor:

Single vertebral metastasis: If it meets the indications for total vertebral resection, surgical resection is recommended.
High-grade epidural compression and spinal instability that are not sensitive to radiotherapy: Minimally invasive surgery can be selected for treatment.
Lumbar schwannoma:

In certain types of lumbar schwannoma (non-giant tumors), minimally invasive surgery through the channel to remove the tumor has the advantages of less surgical trauma, less bleeding, faster recovery and definite efficacy.
Spinal cord tumor:

Minimally invasive surgery is also used in the surgical/comprehensive treatment of spinal cord tumors, especially for patients who need to receive comprehensive treatment such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy.
It should be noted that although minimally invasive surgery has significant advantages in the above-mentioned cases, its indications need to be strictly controlled, especially for vascularized vertebral tumors, and small surgical incisions should be performed with caution.

Why is traditional open internal fixation (ORIF) the best choice instead of minimally invasive surgery when performing complex unstable fractures?
Conventional open internal fixation (ORIF) is often considered the best option over minimally invasive surgery for complex unstable fractures for the following reasons:

Fixation strength and stability: ORIF provides rigidity and biomechanical stability through the use of internal fixation devices such as plates, which are essential for early mobilization and recovery. In contrast, although minimally invasive surgery has the advantages of less trauma and pain, its fixation effect may not be as good as ORIF in some cases, such as highly comminuted or severely soft-tissue damaged fractures.

Infection risk: For some specific situations, such as periarticular fractures, internal fixation can reduce the risk of infection more than external fixation. For example, in fractures that occur after total knee replacement, internal fixation reduces the risk of deep and superficial infection due to the reduction of puncture points.

Elderly patients: In elderly patients, the use of traditional non-locking plates may increase the risk of swelling and complications due to thinner skin and poor soft tissue conditions. In this case, ORIF can provide better stability, and locking plates can further enhance the fixation effect in osteoporotic bone.

Functional recovery: ORIF allows early mobilization, helps maintain fracture-related joint mobility, reduces muscle atrophy, and can better preserve blood supply to the skin around the incision, reducing the risk of skin necrosis.

Scope of indications: Although minimally invasive surgery has its advantages in some cases, ORIF is still the main choice for treating complex fractures such as tibia Pilon fractures. In these cases, minimally invasive surgery may not provide sufficient fixation strength and stability.

How effective are minimally invasive orthopedic surgical instruments in treating distal radius fractures?

Minimally invasive orthopedic surgical instruments have shown significant superiority in the treatment of distal radius fractures, especially in the treatment of unstable distal radius fractures in the elderly. According to a study by Huang Yaoping et al., they explored the effects of minimally invasive surgery and traditional open reduction treatment, and the results showed that minimally invasive surgery has better efficacy.

The study by Yang Shun et al. showed that wrist arthroscopy-assisted titanium internal fixator is an effective minimally invasive technique that can clearly observe the fracture and scaphoid fracture line, shorten the healing time, and enable patients to return to daily life faster. In addition, the application of 3D printing technology has further improved the accuracy and effect of minimally invasive surgery. Models are made based on preoperative CT examination results, and personalized surgical plans are formulated to improve the success rate of surgery and the patient's recovery effect.

Another study showed that minimally invasive surgery with a small incision to retain the pronator quadratus muscle has obvious advantages in operation time and blood loss compared with traditional procedures. At the same time, the visual analog scale (VAS) results showed that the patient's pain level was reduced. As a minimally invasive surgical method, the external fixator has achieved good clinical results due to its simplicity, no need for secondary surgery, and little loss of adjacent tissues.

Arthroscopy-assisted full minimally invasive articular surface precision reduction and firm internal fixation surgery also show good efficacy, especially for patients with C-type fractures involving the articular surface. This method can effectively avoid tendon damage and reduce surgical trauma.

For forearm fractures and ankle torsion fractures, what are the advantages and disadvantages of minimally invasive surgery compared with traditional open internal fixation (ORIF)?

For forearm fractures and ankle torsion fractures, minimally invasive surgery has the following advantages and disadvantages compared with traditional open internal fixation (ORIF):

Advantages of minimally invasive surgery:
Less trauma and less pain: Since minimally invasive surgery requires smaller incisions and less damage to surrounding tissues, patients will suffer less pain.
Fast healing: Since the periosteum is not stripped, the hematoma at the end of the fracture contains a large amount of osteogenic factors and is well preserved, which helps to accelerate the healing of the fracture. In addition, minimally invasive surgery usually does not damage surrounding blood vessels and nerves, thereby reducing the risk of infection and other complications.
Early functional exercise: Patients can perform functional exercises earlier after surgery, which is conducive to maintaining the joint mobility function associated with the fracture and reducing muscle atrophy.
Less soft tissue damage: Minimally invasive surgery causes less damage to soft tissues, reducing the possibility of postoperative complications.
Disadvantages of minimally invasive surgery:
High technical requirements: Since minimally invasive surgery relies on high-precision orthopedic machinery and the technical ability of the doctor, it has higher requirements for the surgeon.
Limited control ability: Some types of minimally invasive surgery (such as intramedullary nail fixation) may not be as good as traditional plate fixation in controlling rotation.
Advantages of traditional open internal fixation (ORIF):

Anatomical reduction: ORIF can achieve more precise anatomical reduction, which is very important for the treatment of some complex fractures.

High stability: Traditional ORIF usually provides high stability, which helps prevent refracture.

Disadvantages of traditional open internal fixation (ORIF):

Large trauma: ORIF requires a larger incision, resulting in greater trauma and more bleeding, which can easily cause damage to blood vessels, nerves, and muscles, which may lead to complications such as joint adhesion and limb movement disorders.

Large blood supply damage: Since more periosteum and soft tissue need to be stripped, ORIF causes greater damage to blood supply, which may affect the speed of fracture healing.

High surgical risk: ORIF surgery has relatively high risks, including infection, nerve damage, etc.

Minimally invasive surgery has obvious advantages in terms of less trauma, faster healing, and early functional recovery, but it has higher technical requirements for doctors; while traditional ORIF performs better in terms of anatomical reduction and stability, it has large trauma, severe blood supply damage, and high surgical risks.

For more photos and details please contact me:
Company Name: Tonglu Wanhe Medical Instruments Co., Ltd.
Sales: Emma
Tel:+86 571 6991 5082
Mobile: +86 13685785706