Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Prevalence of the Use of MIS Techniques in the Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD) Amongst Members of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) in 2016

  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study Design

Electronic survey administered to Scoliosis Research Society members.

Objective

To determine the prevalence of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques for the treatment of adult spinal deformity.

Summary of Background Data

There is a paucity of data available on the practice pattern, prevalence of minimally invasive spine surgery, and the preferred minimally invasive techniques in the treatment of adult spine deformity.

Methods

An electronic nine-question survey regarding individual usage pattern of minimally invasive spine surgery techniques was administered in 2016 to the members of the Scoliosis Research Society. Determinants included complexity in condition of patient population, prevalence of use of minimally invasive techniques in the surgeon’s practice, prevalence of use of a particular MIS technique, strategy elected during surgery, adoption of staging of procedures and timing between staging of procedures.

Results

A total of 357 surgeons responded (61.3% response rate), and 154 (43.1%) of the respondents said that they use MIS as a part of their surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. However, of these 154 respondents, 67 (43.5%) said that their MIS usage in deformity practice was between 1% and 20%. Only 11 (7.2%) said that they used MIS 81% to 100% of the time. The top MIS approaches that surgeons chose were MIS lateral lumbar interbody fusion 109 (70.59%) and MIS percutaneous screws 91 (58.8%).

Conclusions

The low rate of adoption of these techniques among the SRS members may be due to the false perception that there is not enough data to support that MIS techniques are better. This and the fact that a practitioner needs to be facile at different MIS techniques may be the true impediment to the adoption of MIS techniques in the treatment of ASD.

Level of Evidence

Level IV.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anand N, Cohen J, Cohen J, et al. Comparison of a newer versus older protocol for circumferential minimally invasive surgical (CMIS) correction of adult spinal deformity (ASD)—evolution over a 10-year experience. Spine Deform. 2017;5:213–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anand N, Baron EM, Khandehroo B, Kahwaty S. Long-term 2- to 5-year clinical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:1566–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Starkweather AR, Witek-Janusek L, Nockels RP, et al. The multiple benefits of minimally invasive spinal surgery: results comparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar fusion. J Neurosci Nurs. 2008;40:32–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kim KT, Lee SH, Suk KS, Bae SC. The quantitative analysis of tissue injury markers after mini-open lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31:712–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mobbs RJ, Sivabalan P, Li J. Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies. J Clin Neurosci. 2012;19:829–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Seng C, Siddiqui MA, Wong KP, et al. Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:2049–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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(suppl 8):S59–65.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nilsonne U, Lundgren KD. Long-term prognosis in idiopathic scoliosis. Acta Orthop Scand. 1968;39:456–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Battié MC, Videman T. Lumbar disc degeneration: epidemiology and genetics. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(suppl 2):3–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gupta MC. Degenerative scoliosis. Options for surgical management. Orthop Clin North Am. 2003;34:269–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Carter OD, Haynes SG. Prevalence rates for scoliosis in US adults: results from the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Int J Epidemiol. 1987;16:537–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Pérennou D, Marcelli C, Hérisson C, Simon L. Adult lumbar scoliosis. Epidemiologic aspects in a low-back pain population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19:123–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schwab F, Dubey A, Gamez L, et al. Adult scoliosis: prevalence, SF-36, and nutritional parameters in an elderly volunteer population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:1082–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yen CP, Mosley YI, Uribe JS. Role of minimally invasive surgery for adult spinal deformity in preventing complications. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9:309–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Witham TF, et al. Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2011;54:33–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. McGirt MJ, Parker SL, Lerner J, et al. 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;14:771–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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  Google Scholar 

  18. Uribe JS, Deukmedjian AR, Mummaneni PV, et al. Complications in adult spinal deformity surgery: an analysis of minimally invasive, hybrid, and open surgical techniques. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36:E15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Anand N, Sardar ZM, Simmonds A, et al. Thirty-day reoperation and readmission rates after correction of adult spinal deformity via circumferential minimally invasive surgery-analysis of a 7-year experience. Spine Deform. 2016;4:78–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Webb J, Gottschalk L, Lee YP, et al. Surgeon perceptions of minimally invasive spine surgery. SAS J. 2008;2:145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hamilton DK, Kanter AS, Bolinger BD, et al. Reoperation rates in minimally invasive, hybrid and open surgical treatment for adult spinal deformity with minimum 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2016;25:2605–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Anand N, Baron EM, Kahwaty S. Evidence basis/outcomes in minimally invasive spinal scoliosis surgery. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2014;25:361–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Anand N, Baron EM, Khandehroo B. Is circumferential minimally invasive surgery effective in the treatment of moderate adult idiopathic scoliosis? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:1762–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Anand N, Rosemann R, Khalsa B, Baron EM. Mid-term to long-term clinical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive correction and fusion for adults with scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28:E6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Anand N, Kong C, Fessler RG. A staged protocol for circumferential minimally invasive surgical correction of adult spinal deformity. Neurosurgery. 2017;81:733–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Spine Trauma, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, 444 S. San Vicente Blvd., #900, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA

    Neel Anand MD (Director)

  2. Topiwala National Medical College, Mumbai, India

    Aniruddh Agrawal

  3. Department of Orthopaedics UC Denver, University of Colorado, USA

    Evalina L. Burger MD

  4. Orthopaedic Surgeon, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, USA

    Emmanuelle Ferrero MD

  5. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Jeremy L. Fogelson MD

  6. Department of Radiology, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Japan

    Takashi Kaito MD

  7. Private Practice, Amarillo, TX, USA

    Michael O. LaGrone MD

  8. Department of Spine Surgery, Pellegrin University Hospital, Bordeaux, France

    Jean-Charles Le Huec MD

  9. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kyung Hee Hospital, College of Medicine, The Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea

    Jung-Hee Lee MD

  10. Fountain Valley, CA, USA

    Ram Mudiyam MD

  11. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, St. Marianna University, Kawasaki, Kangawa, Japan

    Yutaka Sasao MD

  12. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Jonathan N. Sembrano MD

  13. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Medical Center’s Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York City, NY, USA

    Per D. Trobisch MD

  14. Department of Orthopaedics, National Taiwan University Hospital and National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan

    Shu-Hua Yang MD

Authors
  1. Neel Anand MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aniruddh Agrawal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Evalina L. Burger MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emmanuelle Ferrero MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jeremy L. Fogelson MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Takashi Kaito MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael O. LaGrone MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jean-Charles Le Huec MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jung-Hee Lee MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ram Mudiyam MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Yutaka Sasao MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Jonathan N. Sembrano MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Per D. Trobisch MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Shu-Hua Yang MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neel Anand MD.

Additional information

Author disclosures: NA (Consultant: Medtronics, Theracell, Spinal Balance; Royalties: Medtronics, Globus Medical, Elsevier; Stock Options: Globus Medical, Theracell, Spinal Balance, Bonovo, Atlas Spine, GYS Tech, Paradigm Spine), AA (none), ELB (none), EF (none), JLF (none), TK (none), MOL (royalties from Innovasis for his contribution to the design of their deformity system; consultant fees and travel expenses for participation as Scientific Advisory Board member for Innovasis), JCLH (personal fees from Medtronic, outside the submitted work), JHL (none), RM (personal fees from K2M and Alphatec Spine, nonfinancial support from Globus Medical, outside the submitted work), YS (none), JNS (other from NuVasive, Inc., Zyga, SI-Bone, AO Spine, and Veterans Affairs Research, outside the submitted work), PDT (personal fees from Globus and Medtronic, nonfinancial support from K2M, outside the submitted work), SHY (none).

No IRB approval was required for this study.

Financial sources: None to be declared.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anand, N., Agrawal, A., Burger, E.L. et al. The Prevalence of the Use of MIS Techniques in the Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD) Amongst Members of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) in 2016. Spine Deform 7, 319–324 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2018.08.014

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2018.08.014

Keywords

Search

Navigation