Current Status of Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures in the Lumbar Spine
Current Status of Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures in the Lumbar Spine
The last decade has seen an explosion of interest in ‘minimally invasive’ procedures in all areas of medicine. This is particularly true for spinal disorders. Some of these techniques represent significant advances in spine care, and have assumed major roles in the care of patients with back-related symptoms. Others appear to offer no benefit, and in some cases may actually be less effective than conventional treatments.
Percutaneous lumbar discectomy techniques hold significant promise; however, at the present time, lumbar microdiscectomy remains the gold standard for the surgical treatment of lumbar disc protrusion with radiculopathy.Intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) is emerging as a useful option for selected patients with intractable mechanical back pain, whose only other option has historically been a spinal fusion. Percutaneous fusion techniques are in their infancy, and may also prove to be of benefit for these patients. Although not a minimally invasive procedure, disc arthroplasty (‘artificial disc’) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2004, and may be appropriate for selected patients with mechanical back pain.
Percutaneous vertebral augmentation, including vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, has become the treatment of choice for many patients with intractable back pain secondary to vertebral insufficiency fractures in the elderly. This article chronicles the evolution and current status of several minimally invasive spinal procedures and provides a comparison with conventional treatments.
Pe rcutaneous Discectomy
Over the last 40 years, numerous percutaneous techniques have been developed for the treatment of radiculopathy secondary to lumbar disc herniation. The effectiveness of these methods must be considered in the context of the conventional procedure – lumbar microdiscectomy.
Lumbar Microdiscectomy
Lumbar discectomy as a treatment for herniated lumbar intervertebral discs was first reported by Dandy in 1929,1 and subsequently described in greater detail by Mixter and Barr in 1934.2 After initial modifications, the procedure was basically unchanged until the operating microscope was introduced as a technical adjunct in 1978. This resulted in better illumination and magnification of the operative field. The operation came to be known as lumbar microdiscectomy or microsurgical discectomy, which is carried out through a smaller incision with less dissection than a standard discectomy. Microdiscectomy is generally regarded as a technical modification of standard discectomy, rather than a distinctly different procedure. Currently, the procedure is carried out through a small posterior incision, which is centered over the disc space. Most surgeons use some form of magnified vision, either loupes or an operating microscope. Variable amounts of laminar bone, ligamentum flavum, and medial facet are removed as needed to provide access to the disc herniation, which is then removed. The remaining disc nucleus is removed to varying degrees based on surgeon preference. The open surgical approach permits exploration for sequestered disc fragments and decompression of bony foraminal stenosis. In some centers, the procedure is now carried out through tube retractors of various sizes to limit dissection of paraspinal tissues.
Surgical outcomes are generally excellent. Success rates as high as 95% have been reported in single surgeon series. Results obtained in routine clinical practice are not as robust, but are still excellent. In a prospective study of 219 patients undergoing lumbar discectomy performed by multiple surgeons in community hospitals, with one-year minimum follow-up, Atlas reported that sciatica was improved in 81.3% of patients, and that 86.5% of patients would choose surgery again.3
These results serve as an important benchmark when analyzing outcomes with percutaneous approaches.
- Dandy W E,“Loose cartilage from intervertebral disk simulating tumor of spinal cord”, Arch. Surg. (1929);19: pp. 660–672.
- Mixter W J, Barr J S, “Rupture of intervertebral disc with involvement of spinal canal”, N. Engl. J. Med. (1934);211: pp. 210–215.
- Atlas S J, Deyo R A, Keller R B et al.,“The Maine Lumbar Spine Study, Part II: 1-year outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of sciatica”, Spine (1996);21: pp. 1,777–1,786.
- Onik G, Mooney V, Maroon J C et al., “Automated percutaneous discectomy: a prospective multi-institutional study”, Neurosurg. (1990);26: pp. 228–232.
- Kahanovitz N, Viola K, Goldstein T, Dawson E, “A multicenter analysis of percutaneous discectomy”, Spine (1990);15: pp. 713–715.
- Choy D S, Ascher P W, Ranu H S et al., “Percutaneous laser disc decompression: a new therapeutic modality”, (published correction appears in Spine (1993);18: p. 939), Spine (1992);17: pp. 949–956.
- Deen H G, Fenton D S, “Electrothermal disc decompression: preliminary experience”, International Intradiscal Therapy Society, Scientific Program annual meeting, Munich, Germany (2004).
- Karasek M, Bogduk N, “Twelve-month follow-up of a controlled trial of intradiscal thermal anuloplasty for back pain due to internal disc disruption”, Spine (2000);25: pp. 2,601–2,607.
- Saal J A, Saal J S, “Intradiscal electrothermal treatment for chronic discogenic low back pain: prospective outcome study with a minimum 2-year follow-up”, Spine (2002);27: pp. 966–973.
- Pauza K, Howell S, Dreyfuss P et al.,“A randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of intradiscal electrothermal anuloplasty (IDET) for the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain: 6-month outcomes”, presented at: 10th Annual Meeting of the International Spinal Injection Society;Austin,Texas (7 September 2002).
- McKay B, Sandhu H S, “Use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in spinal fusion applications”, Spine (2002);27(16, suppl. 1):S66–S85.
- Lane J M, Johnson C E, Khan S N, Girardi F P, Cammisa F P Jr “Minimally invasive options for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures”, Orthop. Clin. North Am. (2002);33: pp. 431–438.
Specialities:
- Neurology
- ADHD
- Advanced Parkinson's Disease
- Anxiety Disorder
- Brain Cancer
- Cerebrovascular Disease
- Dementia
- Epilepsy
- Mood Disorders
- Motor/Movement Disorder
- Multiple Sclerosis
- Neuroimaging
- Neurosurgery
- Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
- Pain/Headache
- Parkinson's Disease
- Psychiatry
- Schizophrenia
- Sleep Disorder
- Stroke
- 16 February 2012
- 1 March 2012
- 1 March 2012










