Browse

You are looking at 1 - 7 of 7 items for

  • Refine by Access: all x
  • By Author: Sciubba, Daniel M. x
  • By Author: Fessler, Richard G. x
Clear All
Restricted access

Dean Chou, Virginie Lafage, Alvin Y. Chan, Peter Passias, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Robert K. Eastlack, Kai-Ming Fu, Richard G. Fessler, Munish C. Gupta, Khoi D. Than, Neel Anand, Juan S. Uribe, Adam S. Kanter, David O. Okonkwo, Shay Bess, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Han Jo Kim, Justin S. Smith, Daniel M. Sciubba, Paul Park, Praveen V. Mummaneni, and the International Spine Study Group (ISSG)

OBJECTIVE

Circumferential minimally invasive spine surgery (cMIS) for adult scoliosis has become more advanced and powerful, but direct comparison with traditional open correction using prospectively collected data is limited. The authors performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected, multicenter adult spinal deformity data. The authors directly compared cMIS for adult scoliosis with open correction in propensity-matched cohorts using health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) measures and surgical parameters.

METHODS

Data from a prospective, multicenter adult spinal deformity database were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were age > 18 years, minimum 1-year follow-up, and one of the following characteristics: pelvic tilt (PT) > 25°, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) > 10°, Cobb angle > 20°, or sagittal vertical axis (SVA) > 5 cm. Patients were categorized as undergoing cMIS (percutaneous screws with minimally invasive anterior interbody fusion) or open correction (traditional open deformity correction). Propensity matching was used to create two equal groups and to control for age, BMI, preoperative PI-LL, pelvic incidence (PI), T1 pelvic angle (T1PA), SVA, PT, and number of posterior levels fused.

RESULTS

A total of 154 patients (77 underwent open procedures and 77 underwent cMIS) were included after matching for age, BMI, PI-LL (mean 15° vs 17°, respectively), PI (54° vs 54°), T1PA (21° vs 22°), and mean number of levels fused (6.3 vs 6). Patients who underwent three-column osteotomy were excluded. Follow-up was 1 year for all patients. Postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (p = 0.50), Scoliosis Research Society–total (p = 0.45), and EQ-5D (p = 0.33) scores were not different between cMIS and open patients. Maximum Cobb angles were similar for open and cMIS patients at baseline (25.9° vs 26.3°, p = 0.85) and at 1 year postoperation (15.0° vs 17.5°, p = 0.17). In total, 58.3% of open patients and 64.4% of cMIS patients (p = 0.31) reached the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI at 1 year. At 1 year, no differences were observed in terms of PI-LL (p = 0.71), SVA (p = 0.46), PT (p = 0.9), or Cobb angle (p = 0.20). Open patients had greater estimated blood loss compared with cMIS patients (1.36 L vs 0.524 L, p < 0.05) and fewer levels of interbody fusion (1.87 vs 3.46, p < 0.05), but shorter operative times (356 minutes vs 452 minutes, p = 0.003). Revision surgery rates between the two cohorts were similar (p = 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

When cMIS was compared with open adult scoliosis correction with propensity matching, HRQOL improvement, spinopelvic parameters, revision surgery rates, and proportions of patients who reached MCID were similar between cohorts. However, well-selected cMIS patients had less blood loss, comparable results, and longer operative times in comparison with open patients.

Full access

Patrick C. Hsieh, Tyler R. Koski, Daniel M. Sciubba, Dave J. Moller, Brian A. O'shaughnessy, Khan W. Li, Ziya L. Gokaslan, Stephen L. Ondra, Richard G. Fessler, , and John C. Liu

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.