Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

MIS in Adolescent Deformity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Minimally Invasive Spinal Deformity Surgery

  • 1822 Accesses

Abstract

The prevalence of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is reported to be 2–3 %, with approximately less than 0.1 % of all adolescents having curves greater than 40°. The goals of surgical treatment in the setting of AIS remain threefold: (1) to prevent progression of the deformity by obtaining a solid arthrodesis, (2) to limit the extent of the fusion, and (3) to obtain a three-dimensional correction of the deformity to achieve a balanced spine in all three planes.The rationale of minimally invasive spine surgery is to try and minimize the approach-related morbidity inherent in the current available techniques for this patient population. This chapter outlines the indications, technique, early results and some of the limitations of MIS in adolescent deformity; while stressing the importance of longer-term follow-up of MIS in the setting of AIS.

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 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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. Kishan S, Bastrom T, Betz RR, Lenke LG, Lowe TG, Clemets D, D’Andrea L, Sucato DJ, Newton PO. Thoracoscopic scoliosis surgery affects pulmonary function less than thoracotomy at 2 years postsurgery. Spine. 2007;32(4):453–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lonner BS, Auerbach JD, Estreicher MB, et al. Pulmonary function changes after various anterior approaches in the treatment of AIS. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009;22(8):551–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Newton PO, Perry A, Bastrom TP, et al. Predictors of change in postoperative pulmonary function in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a prospective study of 254 patients. Spine. 2007;32(17):1875–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Reddi V, Clarke Jr DV, Arlet V. Anterior thoracoscopic instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review. Spine. 2008;33(18):1985–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Newton PO, Upasani VV, Lhamby J, et al. Surgical treatment of main thoracic scoliosis with thoracoscopic anterior instrumentation a five-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(10):20077–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wong HK, Hee HT, Yu Z, et al. Results of thoracoscopic instrumentation and fusion versus conventional posterior instrumented fusion in AIS undergoing selective thoracic fusion. Spine. 2004;29(18):2031–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. German JW, Adamo MA, Hoppenot RG, et al. Perioperative results following lumbar discectomy: comparison of minimally invasive discectomy and standard microdiscectomy. Neurosurg Focus. 2008;25(2):E20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ryang YM, Oertel MF, Mayfrank L, et al. Standard open microdiscectomy versus minimal access trocar microdiscectomy: result of a prospective randomized study. Neurosurgery. 2008;62:174–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Righesso O, et al. Comparison of open discectomy with microendoscopic discectomy in lumbar disc herniations: results of a randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery. 2007;61(3):545–9.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Peng CW, et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine. 2009;34(13):1385–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Katayama Y, Matsuyama Y, Yoshishara H, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes between macro discectomy and micro discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective randomized study with surgery performed by the same spine surgeon. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006;19:344–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rampersaud YR, Annand N, Dekutoski MB. Use of minimally invasive surgical techniques in the management of thoracolumbar trauma: current concepts. Spine. 2006;31(11):S96–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith JS, Ogden AT, Fessler RG. Minimally invasive posterior thoracic fusion. Neurosurg Focus. 2008;25(2):E9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine. 1996;21:941–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 1: Histologic and histochemical analyses in rats. Spine. 1994;19:2590–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: Histologic and histochemical analyses in humans. Spine. 1994;19:2598–602.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kawaguchi Y, Yakubi S, Styf J, et al. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Topographic evaluation of intramuscular pressure and blood flow in the porcine back muscle during surgery. Spine. 1996;21:2683–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim DY, Lee SH, Chung SK, et al. Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation. Spine. 2005;30:123–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Macnab I, Cuthbert H, Godfrey CM. The incidence of denervation of the sacrospinalis muscle following spinal surgery. Spine. 1977;2:294–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mayer TG, Vanharanta H, Gatchel RJ, et al. Comparison of CT scan muscle measurements and isokinetic trunk strength in postoperative patients. Spine. 1989;14:33–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rantanen J, Hurme M, Falck B, et al. The lumbar multifidus muscle five years after surgery for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine. 1993;18:568–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljärvi L, et al. A local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine. 1993;18:575–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Styf JR, Willén J. The effects of external compression by three different retractors on pressure in the erector spine muscles during and after posterior lumbar spine surgery in humans. Spine. 1998;23:354–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Weber BR, Grob D, Dvorák J, et al. Posterior surgical approach to the lumbar spine and its effect on the multifidus muscle. Spine. 1997;22:1765–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Anand N, Baron EM, Thaiyananthan G, et al. Minimally invasive multilevel percutaneous correction and fusion for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis: a technique and feasibility study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21:459–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hsieh PC, Koski TR, Sciubba DM, et al. Maximizing the potential of minimally invasive spine surgery in complex spinal disorders. Neurosurg Focus. 2008;25(2):E19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Samdani AF, Asghar J, Miyanji F, et al. Minimally invasive treatment of pediatric spinal deformity. Semin Spine Surg. 2011;23(1):72–75.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Miyanji F, Samdani AF, Marks M, et al. Minimally invasive surgery for AIS: an early prospective comparison with standard open posterior surgery. J Spine. 2013;2(4):S5–001.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cahill PJ, Marvil S, Cuddihy L, et al. Autofusion in the immature spine treated with growing rods. Spine. 2010;35:E1199–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Betz RR, Petrizzo AM, Kerner PJ, et al. Allograft versus no graft with a posterior multisegmented hook system for the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2006;31:121–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics, British Columbia Children’s Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Firoz Miyanji MD, FRCSC

Authors
  1. Firoz Miyanji MD, FRCSC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Firoz Miyanji MD, FRCSC .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Neurological Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA

    Michael Y. Wang

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Yi Lu

  3. Department of Orthopaedics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

    D. Greg Anderson

  4. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

    Praveen V. Mummaneni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Wien

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Miyanji, F. (2014). MIS in Adolescent Deformity. In: Wang, M., Lu, Y., Anderson, D., Mummaneni, P. (eds) Minimally Invasive Spinal Deformity Surgery. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-1407-0_37

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-1407-0_37

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-7091-1406-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-7091-1407-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation