Maximizing the potential of minimally invasive spine surgery in complex spinal disorders

2008 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. E19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick C. Hsieh ◽  
Tyler R. Koski ◽  
Daniel M. Sciubba ◽  
Dave J. Moller ◽  
Brian A. O'shaughnessy ◽  
...  

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the spine was primarily developed to reduce approach-related morbidity and to improve clinical outcomes compared with those following conventional open spine surgery. Over the past several years, minimally invasive spinal procedures have gained recognition and their utilization has increased. In particular, MIS is now routinely used in the treatment of degenerative spine disorders and has been shown to be as effective as conventional open spine surgeries. Although the procedures are not yet widely recognized in the context of complex spine surgery, the true potential in minimizing approach-related morbidity is far greater in the treatment of complex spinal diseases such as spinal trauma, spinal deformities, and spinal oncology. Conventional open spine surgeries for complex spinal disorders are often associated with significant soft tissue disruption, blood loss, prolonged recovery time, and postsurgical pain. In this article the authors review numerous cases of complex spine disorders managed with MIS techniques and discuss the current and future implications of these approaches for complex spinal pathologies.

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura A. Snyder ◽  
John O'Toole ◽  
Kurt M. Eichholz ◽  
Mick J. Perez-Cruet ◽  
Richard Fessler

Minimally invasive spine surgery has its roots in the mid-twentieth century with a few surgeons and a few techniques, but it has now developed into a large field of progressive spinal surgery. A wide range of techniques are now called “minimally invasive,” and case reports are submitted constantly with new “minimally invasive” approaches to spinal pathology. As minimally invasive spine surgery has become more mainstream over the past ten years, in this paper we discuss its history and development.


2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jang W. Yoon ◽  
Michael Y. Wang

The field of minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has rapidly evolved over the past 3 decades. This review follows the evolution of techniques and principles that have led to significant advances in the field. While still representing only a subset of spine surgeries, MISS’s goals of reducing soft-tissue trauma and mitigating the morbidity of surgery are being realized, translating into more rapid recovery, lower infection rates, and higher cost savings. Future advances in technology and techniques can be anticipated.


2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. E2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert E. Telfeian ◽  
Anand Veeravagu ◽  
Adetokunbo A. Oyelese ◽  
Ziya L. Gokaslan

Few neurosurgeons practicing today have had training in the field of endoscopic spine surgery during residency or fellowship. Nevertheless, over the past 40 years individual spine surgeons from around the world have worked to create a subfield of minimally invasive spine surgery that takes the point of visualization away from the surgeon's eye or the lens of a microscope and puts it directly at the point of spine pathology. What follows is an attempt to describe the story of how endoscopic spine surgery developed and to credit some of those who have been the biggest contributors to its development.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 694-701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiwon Park ◽  
Dae-Woong Ham ◽  
Byung-Taek Kwon ◽  
Sang-Min Park ◽  
Ho-Joong Kim ◽  
...  

<p>Over the past few decades, interest in minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has increased tremendously due to its core principle of minimizing approach-related injury while providing outcomes similar to traditional open spine procedures. With technical and technological advancements, MISS has expanded its utility not only to simple spinal stenosis, but also to complex spinal pathologies such as metastasis, trauma, or adult spinal deformity. In this article, we review the techniques and technology in MISS and discuss the indications, benefits, and limitations of MISS.</p>


2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 227-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uwe Spetzger ◽  
Andrej Von Schilling ◽  
Gerd Winkler ◽  
Jürgen Wahrburg ◽  
Alexander König

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document