Advertisement

Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 153, Issue 7, pp 1455–1459 | Cite as

"Minimally invasive" lumbar spine surgery: a critical review

  • Michael Payer
Review Article

Abstract

Background

Minimal-access technology has evolved rapidly with "tubular" or "percutaneous" approaches for decompression and stabilization in the lumbar spine. Potential benefits (smaller scars, diminished local pain, reduced blood loss, reduced postoperative wound pain, shorter hospital stays) have to be weighed against possible drawbacks (reduced orientation, steep learning curve, increased radiation exposure, dependency on technology, cost). While non-comparative case series are often rather enthusiastic, comparative studies and particularly RCTs are scarce and might convey a more realistic appreciation.

Methods

A MEDLINE search via PubMed was performed to find all English-language studies comparing "open" or "traditional" or "conventional" with "minimally invasive" or "percutaneous" or "tubular" approaches in degenerative lumbar spine surgery.

Results

Only nine comparative studies could be retrieved altogether. No clear benefit could be found for minimally invasive procedures in lumbar disc herniation, TLIF, or PLIF. There seems to be a slight advantage in terms of hardware safety in open procedures.

Conclusions

This review, based solely on the very limited number of available comparative studies, shows no relevant benefit from minimally invasive techniques, and a tendency for more safety in open procedures in lumbar disc herniation, TLIF and PLIF.

Keywords

Spine surgery Lumbar spine Minimally invasive Percutaneous Tubular Review 

Abbreviations

VAS

Visual analogue scale

EBL

Estimated blood loss

TLIF

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

PLIF

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion

ODI

Oswestry disability index

LOS

Length of stay

RCT

Randomized controlled trial

Notes

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Arts MP, Brand R, van den Akker ME, Koes BW, Bartels RH, Peul WC, Leiden-The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group (SIPS) (2009) Tubular diskectomy vs. conventional microdiskectomy for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 302(2):149–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chung RS, Ahmed N (2010) The impact of minimally invasive surgery on residents' open operative experience: analysis of two decades of national data. Ann Surg 251(2):205–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV (2008) 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 9(6):560–565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Epstein NE (2009) Minimally invasive/endoscopic vs. "open" posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy: do the risks outweigh the benefits? Surg Neurol 71(3):330–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gepstein R, Shabat S, Reichel M, Pikarsky I, Folman Y (2008) Treatment of postdiscectomy low back pain by percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus open posterior lumbar fusion with pedicle screws. Spine J 8(5):741–746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harrington JF, French P (2008) Open versus minimally invasive lumbar microdiscectomy: comparison of operative times, length of hospital stay, narcotic use and complications. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 51(1):30–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim CW, Lee YP, Taylor W, Oygar A, Kim WK (2007) Use of navigation-assisted fluoroscopy to decrease radiation exposure during minimally invasive spine surgery. Spine J 8(4):584–590PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mariscalco MW, Yamashita T, Steinmetz MP, Krishnaney AA, Lieberman IH, Mroz TE (2010) Radiation exposure to the surgeon during open lumbar microdiscectomy and minimally invasive microdiscectomy: a prospective, controlled trial. Spine 36(3):255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ntoukas V, Müller A (2010) Minimally invasive approach versus traditional open approach for one level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 53(1):21–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oppenheimer JH, DeCastro I, McDonnell DE (2009) Minimally invasive spine technology and minimally invasive spine surgery: a historical review. Neurosurg Focus 27(3):E9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Park Y, Ha JW (2007) Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine 32(5):537–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB (2009) Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 34(13):1385–1389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Perez-Cruet MJ, Fessler RG, Perin NI (2002) Review: complications of minimally invasive spinal surgery. Neurosurgery 51(5 Suppl):S26–S36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V (2009) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 33(6):1683–1688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith HE, Rihn JA, Brodke DS, Guyer R, Coric D, Lonner B, Shelokov AP, Currier BL, Riley L, Phillips FM, Albert TJ (2009) Spine care: evaluation of the efficacy and cost of emerging technology. Am J Med Qual 24(6 Suppl):25S–31SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, Nelson EL, Mason A (2010) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 1:12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryKlinik HirslandenZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity Hospital of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations