The Technological Development of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

Minimally invasive spine surgery has its roots in the mid-twentieth century with a few surgeons and a few techniques, but it has now developed into a large field of progressive spinal surgery. A wide range of techniques are now called \ minimally invasive,\ and case reports are submitted constantly with new \ minimally invasive\ approaches to spinal pathology. As minimally invasive spine surgery has become more mainstream over the past ten years, in this paper we discuss its history and development. © 2014 Laura A. Snyder et al

The Technological Development of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

Minimally invasive spine surgery has its roots in the mid-twentieth century with a few surgeons and a few techniques, but it has now developed into a large field of progressive spinal surgery. A wide range of techniques are now called “minimally invasive,” and case reports are submitted constantly with new “minimally invasive” approaches to spinal pathology. As minimally invasive spine surgery has become more mainstream over the past ten years, in this paper we discuss its history and development

Cost-effectiveness of microendoscopic discectomy versus conventional open discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a prospective randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN51857546]

BACKGROUND: Open discectomy is the standard surgical procedure in the treatment of patients with long-lasting sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation. Minimally invasive approaches such as microendoscopic discectomy have gained attention in recent years. Reduced tissue trauma allows early ambulation, short hospital stay and quick resumption of daily activities. A comparative cost-effectiveness study has not been performed yet. We present the design of a randomised controlled trial on cost-effectiveness of microendoscopic discectomy versus conventional open discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients (age 18–70 years) presenting with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation lasting more than 6–8 weeks are included. Patients with disc herniation larger than 1/3 of the spinal canal diameter, or disc herniation less than 1/3 of the spinal canal diameter with concomitant lateral recess stenosis or sequestration, are eliglible for participation. Randomisation into microendoscopic discectomy or conventional unilateral transflaval discectomy will take place in the operating room after induction of anesthesia. The length of skin incision is equal in both groups. The primary outcome measure is the functional assessment of the patient, measured by the Roland Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica, at 8 weeks and 1 year after surgery. We will also evaluate several other outcome parameters, including perceived recovery, leg and back pain, incidence of re-operations, complications, serum creatine kinase, quality of life, medical consumption, absenteeism and costs. The study is a randomised prospective multi-institutional trial, in which two surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Patients and research nurses are kept blinded of the allocated treatment during the follow-up period of 2 years. DISCUSSION: Currently, open discectomy is the golden standard in the surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Whether microendoscopic discectomy is more cost-effective than unilateral transflaval discectomy has to be determined by this trial

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Novel Technique and Technology with Case Series

Minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has been utilized to treat a variety of spinal disorders. Like other minimally invasive spine surgery techniques and technology, the MI-TLIF approach has the potential to limit the morbidity associated with larger exposures required for open surgery. The MI-TLIF approach has a number of advantages over many other minimally invasive spine surgery approaches including direct decompression of neural elements, collection of morselized autograph from the surgical site to achieve high fusion rates, restoration of spinal canal diameter, foraminal diameter, disk height, and reduction of spondylolisthesis. In this chapter, we discuss a novel technique for performing MI-TLIF developed by the senior author who is a leading minimally invasive spine surgeon. The technique and technology illustrated in this chapter were developed out of a recognition of a need to reduce the learning curve for performing MI-TLIF, as well as need for a cost-effective method that provides a high fusion rate, excellent clinical outcomes, and low complication rate. The indications, surgical planning, postoperative care, complications, and patient outcomes in a large series will be reviewed using this novel MI-TLIF technique