Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Current State of Minimally Invasive Approaches to Adult Spinal Deformity

  • Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (W Hsu, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Minimally invasive approaches to adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery have seen a large increase in popularity over the last decade, largely because these techniques are viewed as a potential improvement to the lengthy recovery and high complication rates observed after traditional open surgery for this pathology. The purpose of this review is to present a summary of the latest minimally invasive techniques used in adult spinal deformity surgery, examine whether MIS surgery can accomplish the goals of ASD surgery, and investigate whether MIS surgery is safer than traditional approaches.

Recent Findings

While minimally invasive approaches have been able to achieve similar patient-reported outcomes as open approaches, they are associated with their own unique complications. Furthermore, they are limited in their ability to correct severe sagittal imbalance. Emerging techniques, such as anterior column realignment and mini-open posterior column osteotomy, have been developed to address these limitations. The minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery algorithm (MISDEF) can help guide surgeons on which approaches may be appropriate for a particular case.

Summary

To maximize the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising the goals of ASD surgery, surgeons must be selective in choosing which cases are amenable to an MIS approach. Leading experts continue to develop algorithms to guide surgical decision-making. As we learn to better define our indications, understand treatment goals, and refine our techniques, MIS approaches will likely play an even larger role in a comprehensive ASD treatment strategy.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Oppenheimer JH, DeCastro I, McDonnell DE. Minimally invasive spine technology and minimally invasive spine surgery: a historical review. Neurosurg Focus. 2009;27(3):E9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Daubs MD, Lenke LG, Cheh G, Stobbs G, Bridwell KH. Adult spinal deformity surgery: complications and outcomes in patients over age 60. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:2238–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Passias PG, Jalai CM, Worley N, Vira S, Marascalchi B, McClelland S, et al. Adult spinal deformity: national trends in the presentation, treatment, and perioperative outcomes from 2003 to 2010. Spine Deform. 2017;5:342–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Glassman SD, Hamill CL, Bridwell KH, Schwab FJ, Dimar JR, Lowe TG. The impact of perioperative complications on clinical outcome in adult deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:2764–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim HJ, Iyer S, Zebala LP, Kelly MP, Sciubba D, Protopsaltis TS, et al. Perioperative neurologic complications in adult spinal deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42:420–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Soroceanu A, Burton DC, Oren JH, Smith JS, Hostin R, Shaffrey CI, et al. Medical complications after adult spinal deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) [Internet]. 2016;41:1718–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bach K, Ahmadian A, Deukmedjian A, Uribe JS. Minimally invasive surgical techniques in adult degenerative spinal deformity: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:1749–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Anand N, Baron EM, Khandehroo B. Limitations and ceiling effects with circumferential minimally invasive correction techniques for adult scoliosis: analysis of radiological outcomes over a 7-year experience. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36:E14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Park P, Wang MY, Lafage V, Nguyen S, Ziewacz J, Okonkwo DO, et al. Comparison of two minimally invasive surgery strategies to treat adult spinal deformity. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22:374–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Park P, Fu K, Mummaneni PV, Uribe JS, Wang MY, Tran S, et al. The impact of age on surgical goals for spinopelvic alignment in minimally invasive surgery for adult spinal deformity. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;29:560–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. • Zanirato A, Damilano M, Formica M, Piazzolla A, Lovi A, Villafañe JH, et al. Complications in adult spine deformity surgery: a systematic review of the recent literature with reporting of aggregated incidences. Eur Spine J. 2018;27:2272–84 A recent meta-analysis examining complications after ASD surgery, including a section comparing MIS, hybrid, and open approaches.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Theologis AA, Jr GMM, Nguyen S, Okonkwo DO, Mummaneni PV, Smith JS, et al. Utility of multilevel lateral interbody fusion of the thoracolumbar coronal curve apex in adult deformity surgery in combination with open posterior instrumentation and L5–S1 interbody fusion: a case-matched evaluation of 32 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;26:208–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mummaneni PV, Shaffrey CI, Lenke LG, Park P, Wang MY, La Marca F, et al. The minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery algorithm: a reproducible rational framework for decision making in minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36:E6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kanter AS, Tempel ZJ, Ozpinar A, Okonkwo DO. A review of minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41:s59–65.

    Google Scholar 

  15. •• Choy W, Miller CA, Chan AK, Fu KM, Park P, Mummaneni PV. Evolution of the minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery algorithm: an evidence-based approach to surgical strategies for deformity correction. Neurosurg Clin N Am [Internet]. Elsevier Inc. 2018;29:399–406 An update of the MISDEF algorithm by leading experts in the field, this article is mandatory reading for any surgeon considering applying MIS techiques to adult deformity surgery.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR. Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2006;6(4):435–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Silvestre C, Mac-Thiong JM, Hilmi R, Roussouly P. Complications and morbidities of mini-open anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion: oblique lumbar interbody fusion in 179 patients. Asian Spine J. 2012;6(2):89–97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Karikari IO, Isaacs RE. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(26 Suppl):S294–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Boachie-Adjei O, Cho W, King AB. Axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) approach for adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(Suppl 2):S225–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schwab FJ, Blondel B, Bess S, Hostin R, Shaffrey CI, Smith JS, et al. Radiographical spinopelvic parameters and disability in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a prospective multicenter analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:E803–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith JS, Klineberg E, Schwab F, Shaffrey CI, Moal B, Ames CP, et al. Change in classification grade by the SRS-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification predicts impact on health-related quality of life measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:1663–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Bess S, Shamji MF, Brodke D, Lenke LG, et al. Recent and emerging advances in spinal deformity. Clin Neurosurg. 2017;80:S77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mundis GM, Turner JD, Deverin V, Uribe JS, Nunley P, Mummaneni P, et al. A critical analysis of sagittal plane deformity correction with minimally invasive adult spinal deformity surgery: a 2-year follow-up study. Spine Deform. 2017;5:265–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. •• Than KD, Park P, Fu K, Nguyen S, Wang MY, Chou D, et al. Clinical and radiographic parameters associated with best versus worst worst clinical outcomes in minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25:1–5 While failure to achieve alignment goals has been clinically correlated with worse outcomes after open ASD surgery, this investigation shows that alignment goals are equally important in MIS surgery.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Haque RM, Mundis GM, Ahmed Y, El Ahmadieh TY, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV, et al. Comparison of radiographic results after minimally invasive, hybrid, and open surgery for adult spinal deformity: a multicenter study of 184 patients. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36:E13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. • Mundis GM, Turner JD, Kabirian N, Pawelek J, Eastlack RK, Uribe J, et al. Anterior column realignment has similar results to pedicle subtraction osteotomy in treating adults with sagittal plane deformity. World Neurosurg. 2017;105:249–56 Surgical technique and case series on anterior column realignment, a new MIS technique designed to address the inability limited sagittal correction capacity of earlier MIS surgery.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. • Wang MY, Bordon G. Mini-open pedicle subtraction osteotomy as a treatment for severe adult spinal deformities: case series with initial clinical and radiographic outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24:769–76 Surgical technique and case series on the novel "mini-open" PSO approach, another MIS technique designed to address the limited sagittal correction capacity of earlier MIS surgery.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Demikiran G, Theologis AA, Pekmezci M, Ames C, Deviren V. Adult spinal deformity correction with multi-level anterior column releases. Clin Spine Surg. 2016;29:141–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Massie LW, Zakaria HM, Schultz LR, Basheer A, Buraimoh MA, Chang V. Assessment of radiographic and clinical outcomes of an articulating expandable interbody cage in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Focus. 2018;44(1):E8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yee TJ, Joseph JR, Terman SW, Park P. Expandable vs static cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: radiographic comparison of segmental and lumbar sagittal angles. Neurosurgery. 2017;81(1):69–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hawasli AH, Khalifeh JM, Chatrath A, Yarbrough CK, Ray WZ. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable versus static interbody devices: radiographic assessment of sagittal segmental and pelvic parameters. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;43(2):E10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Pekmezci M, Tang JA, Cheng L, Modak A, McClellan RT, Buckley JM, et al. Comparison of expandable and fixed interbody cages in a human cadaver corpectomy model: fatigue characteristics. Clin Spine Surg. 2016;29(9):387–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wang MY, Madhavan K. Mini-open pedicle subtraction osteotomy: surgical technique. World Neurosurg. 2014;81(5–6):843.e11–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Daubs MD, Brodke DS, Annis P, Lawrence BD. Perioperative complications of pedicle subtraction osteotomy. Glob Spine J. 2016;6:630–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cho SK, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Yi J-S, Pahys JM, Zebala LP, et al. Major complications in revision adult deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:489–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Klineberg EO, Passias PG, Jalai CM, Worley N, Sciubba DM, Burton DC, et al. Predicting extended length of hospital stay in an adult spinal deformity surgical population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41:E798–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pitter FT, Lindberg-Larsen M, Pedersen AB, Dahl B, Gehrchen M. Readmissions, length of stay and mortality after primary surgery for adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44(2):E107–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Park HY, Ha KY, Kim YH, Chang DG, Kim SI, Lee JW, et al. Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion for adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43:E813–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. •• Lafage R, Schwab F, Glassman S, Bess S, Harris B, Sheer J, et al. Age-adjusted alignment goals have the potential to reduce PJK. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42:1275–82 Current instrumentation techniques are able to achieve any level of correction. This key study demonstrates that alignment goals may vary by patient age, discouraging overcorrection.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Liu FY, Wang T, Yang SD, Wang H, Yang DL, Ding WY. Incidence and risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2016;25:2376–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mummaneni PV, Park P, Fu KM, Wang MY, Nguyen S, Lafage V, et al. Does minimally invasive percutaneous posterior instrumentation reduce risk of proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity surgery? A propensity-matched cohort analysis. Neurosurgery. 2015;78:101–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. • Gandhi S V, Januszewski J, Bach K, Graham R, Vivas AC, Paluzzi J, et al. Development of proximal junctional kyphosis after minimally invasive lateral anterior column realignment for adult spinal deformity. Neurosurgery 2018. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyy061. Analysis suggesting that the degree of correction is the most important known factor in the genesis of PJK, and that preservation of the posterior elements alone does not prevent PJK.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 E. 70th St, New York, NY, 10017, USA

    Francis Lovecchio & Sheeraz A. Qureshi

  2. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA

    Sheeraz A. Qureshi

Authors
  1. Francis Lovecchio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sheeraz A. Qureshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sheeraz A. Qureshi.

Ethics declarations

Human and Animal Rights Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lovecchio, F., Qureshi, S.A. The Current State of Minimally Invasive Approaches to Adult Spinal Deformity. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 12, 318–327 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-019-09570-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-019-09570-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation