Minimally invasive spine surgery: Hurdles to be crossed

Abstract

MISS as a concept is noble and all surgeons need to address and minimize the surgical morbidity for better results. However, we need to be cautions and not fall prey into accepting that minimally invasive spine surgery can be done only when certain metal access systems are used. Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has come a long way since the description of endoscopic discectomy in 1997 and minimally invasive TLIF (mTLIF) in 2003. Today there is credible evidence (though not level-I) that MISS has comparable results to open spine surgery with the advantage of early postoperative recovery and decreased blood loss and infection rates. However, apart from decreasing the muscle trauma and decreasing the muscle dissection during multilevel open spinal instrumentation, there has been little contribution to address the other morbidity parameters like operative time , blood loss , access to decompression and atraumatic neural tissue handling with the existing MISS technologies. Since all these parameters contribute to a greater degree than posterior muscle trauma for the overall surgical morbidity, we as surgeons need to introspect before we accept the concept of minimally invasive spine surgery being reduced to surgeries performed with a few tubular retractors. A spine surgeon needs to constantly improve his skills and techniques so that he can minimize blood loss, minimize traumatic neural tissue handling and minimizing operative time without compromising on the surgical goals. These measures actually contribute far more, to decrease the morbidity than approach related muscle damage alone. Minimally invasine spine surgery , though has come a long way, needs to provide technical solutions to minimize all the morbidity parameters involved in spine surgery, before it can replace most of the open spine surgeries, as in the case of laparoscopic surgery or arthroscopic surgery.