Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures for Spine Pain Management

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Spine Pain Care

  • 1500 Accesses

Abstract

Spine surgery has been rapidly evolving to deal with more complex pathology as well as address spine disease in a more elegant manner. Minimally invasive approaches are an example of this evolution. They have undergone many iterations in the last several decades to hone improvements in efficacy and tissue-sparing techniques. For the modern minimally invasive spine (MIS) surgeon, a tubular retractor system is the workhorse for most decompressive and stabilization procedure. Through these narrow channels, decompressive procedures as straight forward as a microdiscectomy can be performed as well as single- and multiple-level laminectomies through the same skin incision. When coupled with posterior instrumentation, constructs with interbody cage delivery for circumferential fusions can be employed. These techniques have demonstrated outcomes similar to their open counterparts with less local tissue injury, less blood loss, and earlier mobilization and discharge, along with having similar costs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Burman MS. Myeloscopy or the direct visualization of spinal cord. J Bone Joint Surg. 1931;13:695–6.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pool JL. Direct visualization of dorsal nerve roots of cauda equina by means of a myeloscope. Arch Neurol Psychiatr. 1938;39:1308–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ooi Y, Satoh Y, Morisaki N. Myeloscopy: a preliminary report. J Jpn Orthop Assoc. 1973;47:619–27.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gibson JN, Waddell G. Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse: updated cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(16):1735–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Perez-Cruet MJ, Foley KT, Isaacs RE. Micro endoscopic lumbar discectomy: technical note. Neurosurgery. 2002;51(5):S129–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Teli M, Lovi A, Brayda-Bruno M, Zagra A, Corriero A, Giudici F, et al. Higher risk of dural tears and recurrent herniation with lumbar micro-endoscopic discectomy. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(3):443–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Clark AJ, Safaee MM, Khan NR, Brown MT, Foley KT. Tubular microdiscectomy: techniques, complication avoidance, and review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;43(2):E7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cahill KS, Levi AD, Cummock MD, Liao W, Wang MY. A comparison of acute hospital charges after tubular versus open microdiscectomy. World Neurosurg. 2013;80:208–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Foley KT, Smith MM. Microendoscopic discectomy. Tech Neurosurg. 1997;3:301–7.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Phan K, Mobbs RJ. Minimally invasive versus open laminectomy for lumbar stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(2):E91–E100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mobbs JR, Li J, Sivabalan P, Raley D, Rao PJ. Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and open laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(2):197–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nerland US, Jakola AS, Solheim O, Weber C, Rao V, Lonne G, et al. Minimally invasive decompression versus open laminectomy for central stenosis of the lumbar spine: pragmatic comparative effectiveness study. BMJ. 2015;350:h1603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Alimi M, Hofstetter CP, Torres-Campa JM, Navarro-Ramirez R, Cong GT, Njoku I Jr, Härtl R. Unilateral tubular approach for bilateral laminotomy: effect on ipsilateral and contralateral buttock and leg pain. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(2):389–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4594-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Overdevest G, Vleggeert-Lankamp C, Jacobs W, Thome C, Gunzburg R. Peul effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:2244–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Oppenheimer J, Decastro I, McDonnell D. Minimally invasive spine surgery: a historical review. Neurosurg Focus. 2009;27(3):E9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Foley KT, Gupta SK, Justis JR, Sherman MC. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine. Neurosurg Focus. 2001;10(4):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Foley KT, Gupta SK. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results. J Neurosurg. 2002;97(1 Suppl):7–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Scwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT. Minimally invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18. Suppl:S1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Park P, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis: technique and outcomes after a minimum 2 years’ follow up. Neurosurg Focus. 2008;25(2):E16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mummaneni P, Bisson E, Kerezoudis P, Glassman S, Foley K, Slotkin JR, et al. Minimally invasive versus open fusion for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: analysis of the quality outcomes database. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;43(2):E11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years. World Neursurg. 2012;78(1–2):178–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, Zuckerman SL, Godil SS, Cheng JS, McGirt MJ. Minimally invasive vs open TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurg. 2014;82(1–2):230–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Comparative effectiveness of MIS TLIF vs open TLIF fusion. 2 year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability and quality of Life. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(8):479–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundurarajan K, Rampersaud YR. Comparative outcome of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(6):1727–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J. Comparison of one level minimally invasive and open TLIF in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:1780–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Witham TF, Aaronson OS, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2011;54(1):33–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Sansur CA, Berven SH, Fu KM, Broadstone PA, et al. Rates of infection after spine surgery based on 108,419 procedures: a report from the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Committee. Spine. 2011;36(7):556–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lykissas MG, Aichmar A, Hughes AP, Sama AA, Lebl DR, Taher F, et al. Nerve injury after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a review of 919 treated levels with identification of risk factors. Spine J. 2014;14:749–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    Hamid M. Shah

  2. Departments of Anesthesiology and Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    David A. Edwards

Authors
  1. Hamid M. Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David A. Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamid M. Shah .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Richard J. Kitz Professor of Anesthesia Research Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Jianren Mao

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Shah, H.M., Edwards, D.A. (2020). Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures for Spine Pain Management. In: Mao, J. (eds) Spine Pain Care. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27447-4_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27447-4_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27446-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27447-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation