Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 6, pp 1711–1717 | Cite as

Complications Associated With the Initial Learning Curve of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review

  • Joseph A. Sclafani
  • Choll W. Kim
Symposium: Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery



There is an inherently difficult learning curve associated with minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches to spinal decompression and fusion. The association between complication rate and the learning curve remains unclear.


We performed a systematic review for articles that evaluated the learning curves of MIS procedures for the spine, defined as the change in frequency of complications and length of surgical time as case number increased, for five types of MIS for the spine.


We conducted a systematic review in the PubMed database using the terms “minimally invasive spine surgery AND complications AND learning curve” followed by a manual citation review of included manuscripts. Clinical outcome and learning curve metrics were categorized for analysis by surgical procedure (MIS lumbar decompression procedures, MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, percutaneous pedicle screw insertion, laparoscopic anterior lumbar interbody fusion, and MIS cervical procedures). As the most consistent parameters used to evaluate the learning curve were procedure time and complication rate as a function of chronologic case number, our analysis focused on these. The search strategy identified 15 original studies that included 966 minimally invasive procedures. Learning curve parameters were correlated to chronologic procedure number in 14 of these studies.


The most common learning curve complication for decompressive procedures was durotomy. For fusion procedures, the most common complications were implant malposition, neural injury, and nonunion. The overall postoperative complication rate was 11% (109 of 966 cases). The learning curve was overcome for operative time and complications as a function of case numbers in 20 to 30 consecutive cases for most techniques discussed within this review.


The quantitative assessment of the procedural learning curve for MIS techniques for the spine remains challenging because the MIS techniques have different learning curves and because they have not been assessed in a consistent manner across studies. Complication rates may be underestimated by the studies we identified because surgeons tend to select patients carefully during the early learning curve period. The field of MIS would benefit from a standardization of study design and collected parameters in future learning curve investigations.


Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Minimally Invasive Surgical Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Invasive Spine Surgery 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    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: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;9:560–565.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eck JC, Hodges S, Humphreys SC. Minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15:321–329.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Foley KT, Gupta SK. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results. J Neurosurg. 2002;97(1 suppl):7–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M. 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:1929–1941.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jaikumar S, Kim DH, Kam AC. History of minimally invasive spine surgery. Neurosurgery. 2002;51:S1–S14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jhala A, Mistry M. Endoscopic lumbar discectomy: experience of first 100 cases. Indian J Orthop. 2010;44:184–190.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim CW. Scientific basis of minimally invasive spine surgery: prevention of multifidus muscle injury during posterior lumbar surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:S281–S286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim CW, Lee YP, Taylor W, Oygar A, Kim WK. Use of navigation-assisted fluoroscopy to decrease radiation exposure during minimally invasive spine surgery. Spine J. 2008;8:584–590.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim CW, Siemionow K, Anderson DG, Phillips FM. The current state of minimally invasive spine surgery. Instr Course Lect. 2011;60:353–370.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Sudo H, Abe Y, Minami A. Mid-term clinical results of minimally invasive decompression and posterolateral fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws versus conventional approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:1171–1177.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lau D, Lee JG, Han SJ, Lu DC, Chou D. Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). J Clin Neurosci. 2011;18:624–627.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee DY, Lee SH. Learning curve for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2008;48:383–389.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mathews HH, Long BH. Minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of intervertebral disk herniation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2002;10:80–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McAfee PC, Phillips FM, Andersson G, Buvenenadran A, Kim CW, Lauryssen C, Isaacs RE, Youssef JA, Brodke DS, Cappuccino A, Akbarnia BA, Mundis GM, Smith WD, Uribe JS, Garfin S, Allen RT, Rodgers WB, Pimenta L, Taylor W. Minimally invasive spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:S271–S273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McLoughlin GS, Fourney DR. The learning curve of minimally-invasive lumbar microdiscectomy. Can J Neurol Sci. 2008;35:75–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nowitzke AM. Assessment of the learning curve for lumbar microendoscopic discectomy. Neurosurgery. 2005;56:755–762.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oppenheimer JH, DeCastro I, McDonnell DE. Minimally invasive spine technology and minimally invasive spine surgery: a historical review. Neurosurg Focus. 2009;27:E9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parikh K, Tomasino A, Knopman J, Boockvar J, Härtl R. Operative results and learning curve: microscope-assisted tubular microsurgery for 1-and 2-level discectomies and laminectomies. Neurosurg Focus. 2008;25:E14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Park Y, Ha JW. Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:537–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perez-Cruet MJ, Fessler RG, Perin NI. Review: complications of minimally invasive spinal surgery. Neurosurgery. 2002;51:S26–S36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Regan JJ, Yuan H, McAfee PC. Laparoscopic fusion of the lumbar spine: minimally invasive spine surgery: a prospective multicenter study evaluating open and laparoscopic lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24:402–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Patterson J. Intraoperative and early postoperative complications in extreme lateral interbody fusion: an analysis of 600 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rong LM, Xie PG, Shi DH, Dong JW, Lin B, Feng F, Cai DZ. Spinal surgeons’ learning curve for lumbar microendoscopic discectomy: a prospective study of our first 50 and latest 10 cases. Chin Med J (Engl). 2008;121:2148–2151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scheufler KM, Kirsch E. Percutaneous multilevel decompressive laminectomy, foraminotomy, and instrumented fusion for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and myelopathy: assessment of feasibility and surgical technique. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7:514–520.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop. 2009;33:1683–1688.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sclafani JA, Regev GJ, Webb J, Garfin SR, Kim CW. Use of a quantitative pedicle screw accuracy system to assess new technology: initial studies on O-arm navigation and its effect on the learning curve of percutaneous pedicle screw insertion. SAS J. 2011;5:57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tan J, Zheng Y, Gong L, Liu X, Li J, Du W. Anterior cervical discectomy and interbody fusion by endoscopic approach: a preliminary report. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;8:17–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Voyadzis JM. The learning curve in minimally invasive spine surgery. Semin Spine Surg. 2011;23:9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Minimally Invasive Spine Center of ExcellenceSpine Institute of San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations