Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Minimally Invasive Operation for Lumbar Fusion, Canal Stenosis, Degenerative Scoliosis, and Spondylolisthesis. Is It Possible?

  • Chapter
Advanced Concepts in Lumbar Degenerative Disk Disease

  • 2120 Accesses

Abstract

Minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) for scoliosis correction is a newly developed technique, which currently has technical limitations in the degree of deformity that can be corrected. As techniques, especially the lateral interbody fusion, continue to expand and develop, the limit of deformity that can be corrected slowly diminishes. Within these limitations, MISS deformity correction is an accepted and possible surgical option. Both MISS techniques alone or in a hybrid procedure with osteotomies are an emerging tool in the field of spinal deformity correction.

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 219.99
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. Fessler RG, O’Toole JE, Eichholz KM, Perez- Cruet MJ. The development of minimally invasive spine surgery. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2006;17(4):401–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Singh K, Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A, Fineberg SJ, Oglesby M, Pelton MA, et al. A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2013;14(8):1694–701.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wong AP, Smith ZA, Lall RR, Bresnahan LE, Fessler RG. The microendoscopic decompression of lumbar stenosis: a review of the current literature and clinical results. Minim Invasive Surg. 2012;2012:325095.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Smith ZA, Vastardis GA, Carandang G, Havey RM, Hannon S, Dahdaleh N, et al. Biomechanical effects of a unilateral approach to minimally invasive lumbar decompression. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e92611.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Snyder LA, O’Toole J, Eichholz KM, Perez-Cruet MJ, Fessler R. The technological development of minimally invasive spine surgery. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:293582.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Polikandriotis JA, Hudak EM, Perry MW. Minimally invasive surgery through endoscopic laminotomy and foraminotomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. J Orthop. 2013;10(1):13–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial. Spine. 2010;35(14):1329–38.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rosen DS, O’Toole JE, Eichholz KM, Hrubes M, Huo D, Sandhu FA, et al. Minimally invasive lumbar spinal decompression in the elderly: outcomes of 50 patients aged 75 years and older. Neurosurgery. 2007;60(3):503–9; discussion 509–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gazzeri R, Galarza M, Alfieri A. Controversies about interspinous process devices in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases: past, present, and future. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:975052.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ang C-L, Phak-Boon Tow B, Fook S, Guo C-M, Chen JL-T, Yue W-M, et al. Minimally invasive compared with open lumbar laminotomy: no functional benefits at 6 or 24 months after surgery. Spine J. 2013. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.461.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dahdaleh NS, Smith ZA, Snyder LA, Graham RB, Fessler RG, Koski TR. Lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion: outcomes and deformity correction. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2014;25(2):353–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ikuta K, Arima J, Tanaka T, et al. Short-term results of microendoscopic posterior decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Technical note. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;2(5):624–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mobbs RJ, 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;30:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Perez-Cruet MJ, Hussain NS, White GZ, Begun EM, Collins RA, Fahim DK, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion based on long-term analysis of 304 consecutive patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(3):E191–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, Zuckerman SL, Godil SS, Cheng JS, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurg. 2014;82(1–2):230–8.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lee K, Yue W, Yeo W. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:2265–70.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim MC, Park JU, Kim WC, Lee HS, Chung HT, Kim MW, et al. Can unilateral-approach minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion attain indirect contralateral decompression? A preliminary report of 66 MRI analysis. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(5):1–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Dahdaleh NS, Nixon AT, Lawton CD, Wong AP, Smith ZA, Fessler RG. Outcome following unilateral versus bilateral instrumentation in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center randomized prospective study. Neurosurg Focus. 2013;35(2):E13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang M, Lerner J, Lesko J, et al. Acute hospital costs after minimally invasive versus open lumbar interbody fusion: data from a us national database with 6106 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012;17:324–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. McGirt M, Parker S, 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Scheer JK, Auffinger B, Wong RH, Lam SK, Lawton CD, Nixon AT, Dahdaleh NS, Smith ZA, Fessler RG. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for spondylolisthesis in 282 patients: in situ arthrodesis versus reduction. World Neurosurg. 2015;84(1):108–13.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Anand N, Baron EM, Kahwaty S. Evidence basis/outcomes in minimally invasive spinal scoliosis surgery. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2014;25(2):361–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Anand N, Baron EM, Khandehroo B. Limitations and ceiling effects with circumferential minimally invasive correction techniques for adult scoliosis: analysis of radiological outcomes over a 7-year experience. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(5):E14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Acosta FL, Liu J, Slimack N, Moller D, Fessler R, Koski T. Changes in coronal and sagittal plane alignment following minimally invasive direct lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease in adults: a radiographic study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;15(1):92–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dangelmajer S, Zadnik PL, Rodriguez ST, Gokaslan ZL, Sciubba DM. Minimally invasive spine surgery for adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(5):E7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mummaneni PV, Shaffrey CI, Lenke LG, Park P, Minimally Invasive Surgery Section of the International Spine Study Group, et al. The minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery algorithm: a reproducible rational framework for decision making in minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(5):E6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

    Christopher C. Gillis MD & Richard G. Fessler MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Christopher C. Gillis MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard G. Fessler MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher C. Gillis MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Neurological and Spine Surgery, Hospital Samaritano, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    João Luiz Pinheiro-Franco

  2. Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

    Alexander R. Vaccaro

  3. Cleveland Clinic Neurological Surgery, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

    Edward C. Benzel

  4. Schön Klinik München Harlaching FG Wirbelsäulenchirurgie, München, Germany

    H. Michael Mayer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gillis, C.C., Fessler, R.G. (2016). Minimally Invasive Operation for Lumbar Fusion, Canal Stenosis, Degenerative Scoliosis, and Spondylolisthesis. Is It Possible?. In: Pinheiro-Franco, J., Vaccaro, A., Benzel, E., Mayer, H. (eds) Advanced Concepts in Lumbar Degenerative Disk Disease. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47756-4_37

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47756-4_37

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-47755-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-47756-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation