In defense of minimally invasive spine surgery

Abstract

Recently, minimally invasive techniques to address various lumbar spine pathologies have been developed. These techniques are associated with decreased approach-related morbidity, in addition to an accelerated postoperative recovery. In this article, we identify other factors, such as the maintenance of normal biomechanics, cost savings, as well as potentially the reduced need for reoperation that may be associated with the use of minimally invasive techniques, as compared with open surgical approaches.

Key words

Approach-related morbidity - biomechanics - minimally invasive spine surgery

• References

• 1 Samartzis D, Shen FH, Perez-Cruet MJ, Anderson DG. Minimally invasive spine surgery: A historical perspective. Orthop Clin North Am 2007; 38: 305-326
• 2 Bresnahan L, Ogden AT, Natarajan RN, Fessler RG. A biomechanical evaluation of graded posterior element removal for treatment of lumbar stenosis: Comparison of a minimally invasive approach with two standard laminectomy techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34: 17-23
• 3 Postacchini F. Surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999; 24: 1043-1047
• 4 Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: Histologic and histochemical analyses in humans. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994; 19: 2598-2602
• 5 Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996; 21: 941-944
• 6 Kawaguchi Y, Yabuki S, Styf J, Olmarker K, Rydevik B, Matsui H. et al Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Topographic evaluation of intramuscular pressure and blood flow in the porcine back muscle during surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996; 21: 2683-2688
• 7 Gejo R, Kawaguchi Y, Kondoh T, Tabuchi E, Matsui H, Torii K. et al Magnetic resonance imaging and histologic evidence of postoperative back muscle injury in rats. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 25: 941-946
• 8 Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljarvi L, Airaksinen O, Partanen J, Tapaninaho A. Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993; 18: 575-581
• 9 Datta G, Gnanalingham KK, Peterson D, Mendoza N, O’Neill K, Van Dellen J. et al Back pain and disability after lumbar laminectomy: Is there a relationship to muscle retraction?. Neurosurgery 2004; 54: 1413-1420
• 10 Renner SM, Natarajan RN, Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Voronov LI, Guo BY. et al Novel model to analyze the effect of a large compressive follower pre-load on range of motions in a lumbar spine. J Biomech 2007; 40: 1326-1332
• 11 Arts MP, Brand R, van den Akker ME, Koes BW, Bartels RH, Peul WC. et al Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for sciatica: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009; 302: 149-158
• 12 German JW, Adamo MA, Hoppenot RG, Blossom JH, Nagle HA. Perioperative results following lumbar discectomy: Comparison of minimally invasive discectomy and standard microdiscectomy. Neurosurg Focus 2008; 25: E20
• 13 Cole 4th JS, Jackson TR. Minimally invasive lumbar discectomy in obese patients. Neurosurgery 2007; 61: 539-544
• 14 Khoo LT, Fessler RG. Microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 2002; 51: S146-S154
• 15 Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. Minimally invasive surgery for thoracolumbar spinal deformity: Initial clinical experience with clinical and radiographic outcomes. Neurosurg Focus 2010; 28: E9
• 16 Zheng F, Cammisa Jr FP, Sandhu HS, Girardi FP, Khan SN. Factors predicting hospital stay, operative time, blood loss, and transfusion in patients undergoing revision posterior lumbar spine decompression, fusion and segmental instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002; 27: 818-824
• 17 Hyun SJ, Kim YB, Kim YS, Park SW, Nam TK, Hong HJ. et al Postoperative changes in paraspinal muscle volume: Comparison between paramedian interfascial and midline approaches for lumbar fusion. J Korean Med Sci 2007; 22: 646-651
• 18 Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: Indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 2006; 20: E6
• 19 Aryanpur J, Ducker T. Multilevel lumbar laminotomies: An alternative to laminectomy in the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 1990; 26: 429-432
• 20 Rosen DS, O’Toole JE, Eichholz KM, Hrubes M, Huo D, Sandhu FA. et al Minimally invasive lumbar spinal decompression in the elderly: Outcomes of 50 patients aged 75 years and older. Neurosurgery 2007; 60: 503-509
• 21 Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, Ishihara H, Tsuji H. Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999; 24: 1023-1028
• 22 Styf JR, Willén J. The effects of external compression by three different retractors on pressure in the erector spine muscles during and after posterior lumbar spine surgery in humans. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998; 23: 354-358
• 23 Anand N, Baron EM, Thaiyananthan G, Khalsa K, Goldstein TB. Minimally invasive multilevel percutaneous correction and fusion for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis: A technique and feasibility study. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008; 21: 459-467
• 24 Kim JS, Kim DH, Lee SH. Comparison between Instrumented Mini-TLIF and instrumented circumferential fusion in adult low-grade lytic Spondylolisthesis: Can Mini-TLIF with PPF replace circumferential fusion?. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2009; 45: 74-80
• 25 Kim JS, Kang BU, Lee SH, Jung B, Choi YG, Jeon SH. et al Mini-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion augmented by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: A comparison of surgical outcomes in adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2009; 22: 114-121
• 26 Wang MY, Anderson DG, Poelstra KA, Ludwig SC. Minimally invasive posterior fixation. Neurosurgery 2008; 63 (Suppl. 03) 197-203
• 27 Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2008; 9: 560-565
• 28 Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, Sandhu FA, Spears J, Kelly K. et al Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine 2005; 3: 98-105
• 29 Rouben D, Casnellie M, Ferguson M. Long-term durability of minimal invasive posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A clinical and radiographic follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2011; 24: 288-296
• 30 Perez-Cruet MJ, Hussain NS, White GZ, Begun EM, Collins RA, Fahim DK. et al Quality-of-life outcomes with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion based on long-term analysis of 304 consecutive patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014; 39: E191-E198
• 31 Indrakanti SS, Weber MH, Takemoto SK, Hu SS, Polly D, Berven SH. Value-based care in the management of spinal disorders: A systematic review of cost-utility analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470: 1106-1123
• 32 Parker SL, Lerner J, McGirt MJ. Effect of minimally invasive technique on return to work and narcotic use following transforaminal lumbar inter-body fusion: A review. Prof Case Manag 2012; 17: 229-235
• 33 Wang MY, Lerner J, Lesko J, McGirt MJ. Acute hospital costs after minimally invasive versus open lumbar interbody fusion: Data from a US national database with 6106 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 2012; 25: 324-328
• 34 McGirt MJ, Parker SL, Lerner J, Engelhart L, Knight T, Wang MY. Comparative analysis of perioperative surgical site infection after minimally invasive versus open posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: Analysis of hospital billing and discharge data from 5170 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 14: 771-778
• 35 Udeh BL, Costandi S, Dalton JE, Ghosh R, Yousef H, Mekhail N. The 2-year cost-effectiveness of 3 options to treat lumbar spinal stenosis patients. Pain Pract 2015; 15 (02) 107-116 doi: 10.1111/papr.12160.