Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Spine surgery

Minimally invasive spinal surgery—does size matter?

  • News & Views
  • Published:

From Nature Reviews Neurology

View current issue Sign up to alerts

The past two decades have witnessed the emergence of minimally invasive techniques in most surgical specialties, but their role in spinal surgery remains controversial. A recent study has compared outcomes in minimally invasive versus open spinal fusion surgery. Does the size of the surgical approach really matter?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Lee, K. H., Yue, W. M., Yeo, W., Soeharno, H. & Tan, S. B. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur. Spine J. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2281-4.

  2. Mirza, S. K. & Deyo, R. A. Systematic review of randomized trials comparing lumbar fusion surgery to nonoperative care for treatment of chronic back pain. Spine 32, 816–823 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arts, M. P. et al. Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 302, 149–158 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Arts, M. P. et al. Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for the treatment of lumbar disk herniation: 2-year results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery 69, 135–144 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Weinstein, J. N. et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA 296, 2441–2450 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Peul, W. C. et al. Surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment for sciatica. N. Engl. J. Med. 356, 2245–2256 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. West, S. G. et al. Alternatives to the randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Public Health 98, 1359–1366 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnston, B. C. et al. The use of expertise-based randomized controlled trials to assess spinal manipulation and acupuncture for low back pain: a systematic review. Spine 33, 914–918 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank M. Wood and R. Kirollos for critically reading an early version of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Academic Neurosurgery Unit, Box 166, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 2QQ, UK

    Richard Mannion

Authors
  1. Richard Mannion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

R. Mannion has received honoraria and research support from Medtronic, and grant support from Pfizer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mannion, R. Minimally invasive spinal surgery—does size matter?. Nat Rev Neurol 8, 363–365 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2012.113

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2012.113

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Search

Navigation