Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
Published in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine 4/2017

01-12-2017 | Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Pathology (HJ Kim and G Mundis, section editors)

Minimally invasive techniques for lumbar decompressions and fusions

Authors: Ankur S. Narain, Fady Y. Hijji, Jonathan S. Markowitz, Krishna T. Kudaravalli, Kelly H. Yom, Kern Singh

Published in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine | Issue 4/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of review

The purpose of this study is to summarize the recent literature investigating the use of minimally invasive (MIS) techniques in the treatment of lumbar degenerative stenosis, spondylolisthesis, and scoliosis.

Recent findings

MIS lumbar decompression and fusion techniques for degenerative pathology are associated with reduced operative morbidity, shortened length of hospital stay, and reduced postoperative pain and narcotics utilization. Recent studies with long-term clinical follow-up have demonstrated equivalence in clinical outcomes between open and MIS surgical procedures. Radiographically, MIS procedures provide adequate postoperative correction of coronal alignment. Correction of sagittal alignment, however, is more variable based on current reports.

Summary

MIS techniques are both safe and effective in the treatment of lumbar degenerative pathologies. While some studies have reported on long-term outcomes and costs associated with MIS procedures, more investigation into these topics is still necessary. Additionally, further work is required to analyze the training requirements and learning curves of MIS procedures to better promote adoption amongst surgeons.
Literature
1.
An H, Singh K. Synopsis of Spine Surgery. 3rd ed. New York: Thieme; 2016.
2.
Parker SL, Godil SS, Mendenhall SK, Zuckerman SL, Shau DN, McGirt MJ. Two-year comprehensive medical management of degenerative lumbar spine disease (lumbar spondylolisthesis, stenosis, or disc herniation): a value analysis of cost, pain, disability, and quality of life: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(2):143–9.PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
Martin BI, Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Turner JA, Comstock BA, Hollingworth W, et al. Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems. JAMA. 2008;299(6):656–64.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Cummins J, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Hanscom B, Abdu WA, Birkmeyer NJ, et al. Descriptive epidemiology and prior healthcare utilization of patients in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial’s (SPORT) three observational cohorts: disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(7):806–14.CrossRef
6.
Birkmeyer NJ, Weinstein JN, Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD, Skinner JS, Lurie JD, et al. Design of the Spine Patient outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(12):1361–72.CrossRef
7.
Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Zhao W, Blood EA, Tosteson AN, et al. Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(6):1295–304.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Harrop JS, Hilibrand A, Mihalovich KE, Dettori JR, Chapman J. Cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment for degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(22 Suppl 1):S75–85.CrossRef
9.
Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Howard J. Fusion and nonsurgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review of Oswestry Disability Index and MOS Short Form-36 outcomes. Spine J. 2008;8(5):747–55.PubMedCrossRef
10.
•• 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. This study was amongst the first to compare both outcomes and costs after TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Demonstrated that open and MIS TLIF had similar improvements in patient-reported outcomes and costs at 2-years postoperatively. PubMedCrossRef
11.
•• 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: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(2):179–86. This study was a well-designed randomzied, controlled trial comparing MIS and open lumbar decompression. Demonstrated significant advantages for MIS procedures in regards to length of stay, time to mobilization, and postoperative analgesia use. PubMedCrossRef
12.
Issack PS, Cunningham ME, Pumberger M, Hughes AP, Cammisa FP Jr. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012;20(8):527–35.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Costa F, Sassi M, Cardia A, Ortolina A, De Santis A, Luccarell G, et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: analysis of results in a series of 374 patients treated with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral microdecompression. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7(6):579–86.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Caralopoulos IN, Bui CJ. Minimally invasive laminectomy in spondylolisthetic lumbar stenosis. Ochsner J. 2014;14(1):38–43.PubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Arai Y, Hirai T, Yoshii T, Sakai K, Kato T, Enomoto M, et al. A prospective comparative study of 2 minimally invasive decompression procedures for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) versus muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression (MILD). Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(4):332–40.CrossRef
16.
Javalkar V, Cardenas R, Tawfik TA, Khan IR, Bollam P, Banerjee AD, et al. Reoperations after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. World Neurosurg. 2011;75(5–6):737–42.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Martin BI, Mirza SK, Comstock BA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Deyo RA. Reoperation rates following lumbar spine surgery and the influence of spinal fusion procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(3):382–7.CrossRef
18.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
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.CrossRef
20.
Parker SL, Adogwa O, Davis BJ, Fulchiero E, Aaronson O, Cheng J, et al. Cost-utility analysis of minimally invasive versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy for lumbar stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013;26(1):42–7.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Guha D, Heary RF, Shamji MF. Iatrogenic spondylolisthesis following laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis: systematic review and current concepts. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;39(4):E9.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Ang CL, Phak-Boon Tow B, Fook S, Guo CM, Chen JL, Yue WM, et al. Minimally invasive compared with open lumbar laminotomy: no functional benefits at 6 or 24 months after surgery. Spine J. 2015;15(8):1705–12.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Minamide A, Yoshida M, Yamada H, Nakagawa Y, Kawai M, Maio K, et al. Endoscope-assisted spinal decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(6):664–71.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Weiner BK, Walker M, Brower RS, McCulloch JA. Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(21):2268–72.CrossRef
25.
Toyoda H, Nakamura H, Konishi S, Dohzono S, Kato M, Matsuda H. Clinical outcome of microsurgical bilateral decompression via unilateral approach for lumbar canal stenosis: minimum five-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(5):410–5.CrossRef
26.
Podichetty VK, Spears J, Isaacs RE, Booher J, Biscup RS. Complications associated with minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006;19(3):161–6.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Pao JL, Chen WC, Chen PQ. Clinical outcomes of microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(5):672–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
29.
Meyerding HW. Spondylolisthesis. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1932;54:371–9.
30.
Pelton M, Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A, Singh K. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. In: Phillips FM, Lieberman IH, Polly D, editors. Minimally invasive spine surgery: surgical techniques and disease management. New York: Springer; 2014. p. 151–8.
31.
Chou D. Considerations when contemplating minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. World Neurosurg. 2015;84(5):1205–6.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Sulaiman WA, Singh M. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis grades 1-2: patient-reported clinical outcomes and cost-utility analysis. Ochsner J. 2014;14(1):32–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Kulkarni AG, Bohra H, Dhruv A, Sarraf A, Bassi A, Patil VM. Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Indian J Orthop. 2016;50(5):464–72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
Nandyala SV, Fineberg SJ, Pelton M, Singh K. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: one surgeon’s learning curve. Spine J. 2014;14(8):1460–5.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Kim JY, Park JY, Kim KH, Kuh SU, Chin DK, Kim KS, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis: comparison between isthmic and degenerative spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg. 2015;84(5):1284–93.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Choi WS, Kim JS, Ryu KS, Hur JW, Seong JH. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at l5-s1 through a unilateral approach: technical feasibility and outcomes. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:2518394.PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Park Y, Ha JW, Lee YT, Sung NY. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis and degenerative spondylosis: 5-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(6):1813–23.PubMedCrossRef
38.
•• 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. This was one of the first studies to report on long-term (>3 year) outcomes after MIS TLIF. Significant improvements were noted in patient-reported outcomes, with acceptable fusion and complication rates. CrossRef
39.
•• 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. 2014;14(8):1694–701. This study further demonstrated the advantages of MIS TLIF in the immediate postoperative period. MIS TLIF was associated with lower overall hospital costs than open TLIF. PubMedCrossRef
40.
Ploumis A, Transfledt EE, Denis F. Degenerative lumbar scoliosis associated with spinal stenosis. Spine J. 2007;7(4):428–36.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Gupta MC. Degenerative scoliosis. Options for surgical management. Orthop Clin North Am. 2003;34(2):269–79.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(18):2024–9.CrossRef
43.
44.
Terran J, Schwab F, Shaffrey CI, Smith JS, Devos P, Ames CP, et al. The SRS-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: assessment and clinical correlations based on a prospective operative and nonoperative cohort. Neurosurgery. 2013;73(4):559–68.PubMedCrossRef
45.
46.
Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, Ratliff JK, Harrop JS. Adult scoliosis surgery outcomes: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(3):E3.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Zimmerman RM, Mohamed AS, Skolasky RL, Robinson MD, Kebaish KM. Functional outcomes and complications after primary spinal surgery for scoliosis in adults aged forty years or older: a prospective study with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(20):1861–6.CrossRef
48.
Dorward IG, Lenke LG. Osteotomies in the posterior-only treatment of complex adult spinal deformity: a comparative review. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(3):E4.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Good CR, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, O’Leary PT, Pichelmann MA, Keeler KA, et al. Can posterior-only surgery provide similar radiographic and clinical results as combined anterior (thoracotomy/thoracoabdominal)/posterior approaches for adult scoliosis? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(2):210–8.CrossRef
50.
Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. Minimally invasive surgery for thoracolumbar spinal deformity: initial clinical experience with clinical and radiographic outcomes. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(3):E9.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Khajavi K, Shen AY. Two-year radiographic and clinical outcomes of a minimally invasive, lateral, transpsoas approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(6):1215–23.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Karikari IO, Nimjee SM, Hardin CA, Hughes BD, Hodges TR, Mehta AI, et al. Extreme lateral interbody fusion approach for isolated thoracic and thoracolumbar spine diseases: initial clinical experience and early outcomes. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(6):368–75.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Dakwar E, Cardona RF, Smith DA, Uribe JS. Early outcomes and safety of the minimally invasive, lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach for adult degenerative scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(3):E8.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Anand N, Baron EM, Thaiyananthan G, Khalsa K, Goldstein TB. Minimally invasive multilevel percutaneous correction and fusion for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis: a technique and feasibility study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(7):459–67.PubMedCrossRef
55.
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(18):1566–75.CrossRef
56.
Rihn JA, Patel R, Makda J, Hong J, Anderson DG, Vaccaro AR, et al. Complications associated with single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2009;9(8):623–9.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Potter BK, Freedman BA, Verwiebe EG, Hall JM, Polly DW Jr, Kuklo TR. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18(4):337–46.PubMedCrossRef
58.
59.
Kwon B, Kim DH. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion: indications, outcomes, and complications. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016;24(2):96–105.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Tormenti MJ, Maserati MB, Bonfield CM, Okonkwo DO, Kanter AS. Complications and radiographic correction in adult scoliosis following combined transpsoas extreme lateral interbody fusion and posterior pedicle screw instrumentation. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(3):E7.PubMedCrossRef
61.
•• Tempel ZJ, Gandhoke GS, Bonfield CM, Okonkwo DO, Kanter AS. Radiographic and clinical outcomes following combined lateral lumbar interbody fusion and posterior segmental stabilization in patients with adult degenerative scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(5):E11. One of the most complete studies in regards to the reporting of changes in coronal and sagittal alignment parameters after MIS LLIF for degenerative scoliosis. Demonstrated that MIS LLIF produced adequate correction of coronal alignment, but may not produce adequate correction of sagittal alignment. PubMedCrossRef
62.
Phillips FM, Isaacs RE, Rodgers WB, Khajavi K, Tohmeh AG, Deviren V, et al. Adult degenerative scoliosis treated with XLIF: clinical and radiographical results of a prospective multicenter study with 24-month follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(21):1853–61.CrossRef
63.
Kotwal S, Kawaguchi S, Lebl D, Hughes A, Huang R, Sama A, et al. Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic outcome at a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28(4):119–25.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Deukmedjian AR, Ahmadian A, Bach K, Zouzias A, Uribe JS. Minimally invasive lateral approach for adult degenerative scoliosis: lessons learned. Neurosurg Focus. 2013;35(2):E4.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Alimi M, Hofstetter CP, Cong GT, Tsiouris AJ, James AR, Paulo D, et al. Radiological and clinical outcomes following extreme lateral interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(6):623–35.PubMedCrossRef
66.
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.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Manwaring JC, Bach K, Ahmadian AA, Deukmedjian AR, Smith DA, Uribe JS. Management of sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity with minimally invasive anterolateral lumbar interbody fusion: a preliminary radiographic study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(5):515–22.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Caputo AM, Michael KW, Chapman TM, Jennings JM, Hubbard EW, Isaacs RE, et al. Extreme lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis. J Clin Neurosci. 2013;20(11):1558–63.PubMedCrossRef
69.
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.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Sharma AK, Kepler CK, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP, Huang RC, Sama AA. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic outcomes at 1 year: a preliminary report. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(4):242–50.PubMedCrossRef
71.
Scheer JK, Khanna R, Lopez AJ, Fessler RG, Koski TR, Smith ZA, et al. The concave versus convex approach for minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion for thoracolumbar degenerative scoliosis. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22(10):1588–93.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Waddell B, Briski D, Qadir R, Godoy G, Houston AH, Rudman E, et al. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion for the correction of spondylolisthesis and adult degenerative scoliosis in high-risk patients: early radiographic results and complications. Ochsner J. 2014;14(1):23–31.PubMedPubMedCentral
73.
Uribe JS, Deukmedjian AR. Visceral, vascular, and wound complications following over 13,000 lateral interbody fusions: a survey study and literature review. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(Suppl 3):386–96.PubMedCrossRef
74.
75.
Sclafani JA, Kim CW. Complications associated with the initial learning curve of minimally invasive spine surgery: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(6):1711–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
76.
Park Y, Lee SB, Seok SO, Jo BW, Ha JW. Perioperative surgical complications and learning curve associated with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-institute experience. Clin Orthop Surg. 2015;7(1):91–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
77.
Lee KH, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Yue WM. Learning curve of a complex surgical technique: minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF). J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27(7):E234–40.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Ahn J, Iqbal A, Manning BT, Leblang S, Bohl DD, Mayo BC, et al. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression-the surgical learning curve. Spine J. 2016;16(8):909–16.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Minimally invasive techniques for lumbar decompressions and fusions
Authors
Ankur S. Narain
Fady Y. Hijji
Jonathan S. Markowitz
Krishna T. Kudaravalli
Kelly H. Yom
Kern Singh
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine / Issue 4/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1935-9748
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9446-z

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine 4/2017 Go to the issue

Management of Anterior Shoulder Instability (X Li, section editor)

Radiographic Evaluation of Patients with Anterior Shoulder Instability

Quality and Cost Control in TJA (B Waddell, section editor)

Outpatient Total Joint Arthroplasty

Management of Anterior Shoulder Instability (X Li, section editor)

Clinical Evaluation and Physical Exam Findings in Patients with Anterior Shoulder Instability

Correction

Correction to: adjacent level disease-background and update based on disc replacement data

Management of Anterior Shoulder Instability (X Li, section editor)

The Epidemiology and Natural History of Anterior Shoulder Instability

Management of Anterior Shoulder Instability (X Li, section editor)

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for the Management of Anterior Shoulder Instability: Indications and Outcomes