Minimally invasive surgery for thoracolumbar spinal deformity: initial clinical experience with clinical and radiographic outcomes

Full access

Object

Adult degenerative scoliosis can be a cause of intractable pain, decreased mobility, and reduced quality of life. Surgical correction of this problem frequently leads to substantial clinical improvement, but advanced age, medical comorbidities, osteoporosis, and the rigidity of the spine result in high surgical complication rates. Minimally invasive surgery is being applied to this patient population in an effort to reduce the high complication rates associated with adult deformity surgery.

Methods

A retrospective study of 23 patients was undertaken to assess the clinical and radiographic results with minimally invasive surgery for adult thoracolumbar deformity surgery. All patients underwent a lateral interbody fusion followed by posterior percutaneous screw fixation and possible minimally invasive surgical transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion if fusion near the lumbosacral junction was necessary. A mean of 3.7 intersegmental levels were treated (range 2–7 levels). The mean follow-up was 13.4 months.

Results

The mean preoperative Cobb angle was 31.4°, and it was corrected to 11.5° at follow-up. The mean blood loss was 477 ml, and the operative time was 401 minutes. The mean visual analog scale score improvement for axial pain was 3.96. Clear evidence of fusion was seen on radiographs at 84 of 86 treated levels, with no interbody pseudarthroses. Complications included 2 returns to the operating room, one for CSF leakage and the other for hardware pullout. There were no wound infections, pneumonia, deep venous thrombosis, or new neurological deficits. However, of all patients, 30.4% experienced new thigh numbness, dysesthesias, pain, or weakness, and in one patient these new symptoms were persistent.

Conclusions

The minimally invasive surgical treatment of adult deformities is a promising method for reducing surgical morbidity. Numerous challenges exist, as the surgical technique does not yet allow for all correction maneuvers used in open surgery. However, as the techniques are advanced, the applicability of minimally invasive surgery for this population will likely be expanded and will afford the opportunity for reduced complications.

Abbreviations used in this paper: EMG = electromyography; rhBMP = recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein; VAS = visual analog scale.

Abstract

Object

Adult degenerative scoliosis can be a cause of intractable pain, decreased mobility, and reduced quality of life. Surgical correction of this problem frequently leads to substantial clinical improvement, but advanced age, medical comorbidities, osteoporosis, and the rigidity of the spine result in high surgical complication rates. Minimally invasive surgery is being applied to this patient population in an effort to reduce the high complication rates associated with adult deformity surgery.

Methods

A retrospective study of 23 patients was undertaken to assess the clinical and radiographic results with minimally invasive surgery for adult thoracolumbar deformity surgery. All patients underwent a lateral interbody fusion followed by posterior percutaneous screw fixation and possible minimally invasive surgical transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion if fusion near the lumbosacral junction was necessary. A mean of 3.7 intersegmental levels were treated (range 2–7 levels). The mean follow-up was 13.4 months.

Results

The mean preoperative Cobb angle was 31.4°, and it was corrected to 11.5° at follow-up. The mean blood loss was 477 ml, and the operative time was 401 minutes. The mean visual analog scale score improvement for axial pain was 3.96. Clear evidence of fusion was seen on radiographs at 84 of 86 treated levels, with no interbody pseudarthroses. Complications included 2 returns to the operating room, one for CSF leakage and the other for hardware pullout. There were no wound infections, pneumonia, deep venous thrombosis, or new neurological deficits. However, of all patients, 30.4% experienced new thigh numbness, dysesthesias, pain, or weakness, and in one patient these new symptoms were persistent.

Conclusions

The minimally invasive surgical treatment of adult deformities is a promising method for reducing surgical morbidity. Numerous challenges exist, as the surgical technique does not yet allow for all correction maneuvers used in open surgery. However, as the techniques are advanced, the applicability of minimally invasive surgery for this population will likely be expanded and will afford the opportunity for reduced complications.

Due to advances in medical care, the life expectancy of Americans has increased significantly over the past half century. However, with this lengthening of the human lifespan has come an increase in the prevalence of disorders associated with aging, including adult spinal deformity. Adult thoracolumbar scoliosis and kyphosis can be the consequence of numerous etiologies, including progression of a preexisting deformity, delayed posttraumatic sequelae, infection, progressive disc and facet joint degeneration, iatrogenic spinal destabilization, and arthropathies such as rheumatoid arthritis.9 In most cases these deformities will progress with age as patients experience progressive loss of muscular bulk, bone mass, and joint integrity.19

While the treatment of these debilitating disorders can be highly rewarding and meaningful for the patient in terms of pain reduction, improved functional capabilities, and cosmesis, the morbidity associated with surgical correction can be substantial. Given the need for longer-construct multilevel surgery, as well as the need for extensive spinal mobilization and reconstruction, these procedures are typically associated with long anesthesia times and large quantities of blood loss. Thus, in this patient population, which is frequently already medically deconditioned, surgery presents unique hazards.

Traditional open surgery has been associated with a major complication rate as high as 28–86%, even at specialized centers,1,8,24 and the risks of morbidity have been shown to increase with advancing age.25 Minimally invasive surgical approaches offer the potential to reduce some of the complications associated with traditional open spinal surgeries.10–14 Because minimally invasive surgery may reduce soft-tissue trauma, intraoperative blood loss, and surgical site infections, patients may experience reduced postoperative pain and narcotic consumption and more rapid mobilization. While yet unproven, these factors may be especially important in the setting of the medically compromised patient. In the study by Rosen et al.17 50 patients older than 75 years with significant medical comorbidities underwent minimally invasive spinal surgery for spinal canal decompression. While the study had no control arm, the authors were able to demonstrate that the procedure could be performed efficiently and safely. More importantly, the authors reduced their average length of stay to 29 hours, an impressive feat in this age group.

Recently, instruments and implants have been developed for longer-segment fixation, fusion, and segmental manipulation—making minimally invasive surgery for deformities a feasible option in select patients.22 This report describes our initial experience with minimally invasive surgery for adult thoracolumbar spinal deformity.

Methods

Patient Population

A continuous series of 23 patients undergoing minimally invasive primary or supplemental fixation for adult thoracolumbar spinal deformities at 2 academic medical centers was included in this study: University of California at San Francisco (4 patients) and the University of Miami (19 patients). The patient mean age was 64.4 years (range 42–84 years), and 74% were women. The mean followup time was 13.4 months (range 6–34 months) (Table 1). Inclusion criteria were the presence of coronal deformity greater than 20° and/or significant sagittal decompensation with loss of global spinal balance. Patients with limited or focal sagittal imbalance, such as those presenting primarily with a spondylolisthesis, were excluded. In addition, patients with severe central canal stenosis that could not be managed with unilateral minimally invasive decompression were excluded from this study.

TABLE 1:

Clinical characteristics and demographics for 23 patients*

Case No.Age (yrs), SexPathologyProcedureNo. Levels FusedGraft TypeEBL (ml)Op Time (min)LOS (days)Discharge
Stage 1Stage 2
172, FLDSL1–5 lat IFL1–5 percutaneous screws4allograft bone, BMP2203804home
268, ML3–4 postlaminectomy kyphosisL2–3, L3–4, & L4–5 TP lat IFL2–5 percutaneous screws3BMP2503204home
366, FLDSL2–3 & L3–4 TP lat IFL2–S1 percutaneous screws, L4–5 & L5–S1 MIS TLIF4BMP4505005home
466, Flumbar postlaminectomy kyphoscoliosisL2–3 & L3–4 TP lat IFL1 kyphoplasty, L2–5 percutaneous screws3BMP, allograft chips2003107home
556, FLDSL2–3 & L3–4 TP lat IFL2–5 percutaneous screws & L4–5 MIS TLIF3BMP & facet autograft2003607home
642, Fprevious fernstrom ball surgery with spinal deformityminimal access L-4 partial corpectomy & L3–4 & L4–5 IFL3–5 percutaneous screws2BMP, vertebral autograft3002604home
761, Mdelayed posttraumatic kyphosis from T-12 & L-1 burst fracturesminimal access T-12 & L-1 partial corpectomiesT10–L3 percutaneous screws5BMP, vertebral autograft3004005home
844, FLDSL1–2 & L2–3 TPIFL1–3 percutaneous screws2BMP2102003home
972, FLDSL2–3 & L3–4 TP lat IFL2–5 percutaneous screws & L4–5 MIS TLIF3BMP, facet autograft3004053rehab
1071, FLDSL2–3 & L3–4 TP lat IFL2–5 percutaneous screws & L4–5 MIS TLIF3BMP, facet autograft3004206rehab
1179, FLDSL3–4 & L4–5 TP lat IFL3–5 percutaneous screws2BMP2002805home
1276, MLDSL2–3, L3–4, & L4–5 TP lat IFL2–S1 percutaneous screws, L5–S1 TLIF4BMP, facet autograft3006006rehab
1384, MLDSL2–3, L3–4, & L4–5 TP lat IFL2–S1 percutaneous screws, L5–S1 TLIF4BMP, facet autograft3004503rehab
1455, FLDSL2–3 & L3–4 TP lat IFL2–5 percutaneous screws & L4–5 MIS TLIF3BMP4504007rehab
1562, FLDSL1–2, L2–3, & L3–4 TP lat IFT10–L4 percutaneous screws, MIS posterolat fusion T10–L16BMP, rib autograft2504607home
1682, FLDSL1–2 & L2–3 TP lat IFT12–L3 percutaneous screws, T12–L1 posterolat fusion3BMP, rib autograft2002306rehab
1764, FLDSL2–3 & L3–4 TP lat IFL2–5 percutaneous screws & L4–5 MIS TLIF3BMP, facet autograft5003204home
1866, MLDSL1–2, L2–3, & L3–4 TP lat IFL1–5 percutaneous screws, L4–5 MIS TLIF4BMP, facet autograft, rib autograft4503605home
1959, FLDSL1–2, L2–3, & L3–4 TP lat IFT11–L4 percutaneous MIS screws, T11–L1 posterolat fusion5BMP, rib autograft3503604home
2061, FLDSL2–3, L3–4, & L4–5 TP lat IFT11–S1 percutaneous screws, T11–L1 posterolat fusion, L5–S1 MIS TLIF7BMP4004907rehab
2154, Fdelayed posttraumatic kyphosis from T-12 burst fractureT-12 corpectomyT11–L2 percutaneous screws3BMP, vertebral autograft70042020home
2261, FLDSL1–2, L2–3, & L3–4 TP approach IFL1–S1 percutaneous screws, L5–S1 MIS TLIF5BMP, rib autograft, iliac crest autograft65066010home
2361, Mkyphosis from postvertebroplasty osteomyelitisL2–3 TP partial corpectomies, L3–4 & L4–5 interbody fusionL1–S1 percutaneous screws & L5–S1 MIS TLIF, unilat percutaneous iliac screw5BMP, vertebral autograft350066010home

* EBL = estimated blood loss; IF = interbody fusion; LDS = lumbar degenerative scoliosis; LOS = length of stay; MIS = minimally invasive surgical; rehab = rehabilitation facility; TLIF = transforaminal lumbar IF; TP = transpsoas.

† In this case, the anterior surgery was performed via open approach.

The patient population was assessed with regard to clinical outcomes, complications, surgical blood loss, and operative times. Separate VAS scores were obtained for leg (radiculopathic) and axial back pain by patient self-report. Radiographic parameters included preoperative and postoperative Cobb angles to assess sagittal and coronal plane deformity correction based on standing 36-inch radiographs. The sagittal alignment was obtained between the T-11 or T-12 and the S-1 endplates. Fusion status was assessed using fine-slice helical CT scans as determined by attending neuroradiologists. All data were collected with institutional review board approval.

Surgical Technique

All patients underwent combined anterior-posterior surgery in a single anesthesia session (Fig. 1). The anterior procedure was performed using a mini-open direct lateral exposure of the intervertebral discs, as described previously.23 Retraction or spreading of the psoas muscle allowed for disc or vertebral body removal, anterior release, and anterior height restoration. Direct local stimulation as well as continuous live EMG were used in all cases involving a transpsoas approach, and the anterior reconstruction was achieved using femoral ring allograft, polyetheretherketone interbody cages (Medtronic Sofamor Danek or Nuvasive), or expandable cages (Fig. 2) (Globus Medical or Synthes Spine). These interbody devices were filled with rhBMP-2 (InFuse, Medtronic Sofamor Danek). Posterior supplemental fixation was performed with the use of Viper percutaneous pedicle screws and connecting rods (DePuy Spine) introduced through the proximal or distal screw entry site. The screw insertion technique was based on using primarily anteroposterior fluoroscopy, and no image guidance was used. Posterolateral intersegmental fusion was achieved at levels without interbody fusion by exposing the facet joints and transverse processes of interest, decorticating with a high speed bur, and laying in autograft, rhBMP-2, or bone graft substitutes. These are both off-label uses for rhBMP-2.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Case 19. Radiographic examples of lumbar degenerative scoliosis treated via an anterior-posterior minimally invasive approach. A and B: Preoperative images demonstrating a 32° Cobb angle. C and D: Postoperative images demonstrating curve correction to 5° with maintenance of proper local sagittal balance.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Case 23. Example of kyphosis treated via a minimally invasive approach. A and B: The patient presented with spinal osteomyelitis status after vertebroplasty. C: The patient underwent a partial corpectomy with expandable cage reconstruction and posterior percutaneous fixation with cannulated pedicle screws. Mini-open posterolateral fusion was performed at the sites where there was no interbody fusion. D: Follow-up CT scanning demonstrated pseudarthrosis and proximal screw loosening, although the patient did not complain of any new symptoms.

Results

Operative Statistics

An average of 3.7 intersegmental levels (range 2–7 levels) were fused per patient as seen in Table 1. The mean operative time was 401 minutes (range 200–660 minutes) including the anterior component of the combined surgeries. Surgical blood loss averaged 477 ml (range 200–3500 ml). Seven (30.4%) of the patients were discharged to inpatient rehabilitation, and the remainder were discharged home.

Clinical Outcomes

The VAS scores for leg pain averaged 4.35 preoperatively and improved to 1.57 postoperatively, reflecting a mean improvement of 2.78 (Table 2). Utilizing a single-tailed t-test, this revealed a significant change with p < 0.01. The VAS scores for axial back pain averaged 7.30 preoperatively and improved to 3.35 postoperatively, reflecting a mean improvement of 3.96. Using a singletailed t-test, this revealed a significant change (p < 0.01). There were no instances of worsening back pain; however, 3 patients experienced minimal or no improvement in their symptoms.

TABLE 2:

Clinical and radiographic outcomes in 23 patients*

Case No.Leg VAS ScoreBack VAS ScoreCobb Angle (°)Sagittal Angle (°)FusionFU TimeComplications
PreopPostopPreopPostopPreopPostopChangePreopPostopChange
121102328–2445450fused on CT34none
262833211–2145505fused on CT23transient thigh numbness & pain
322723610–2642486fused on CT21transient thigh numbness
47183295–27384810fused on CT19T-11 compression fracture 12 mos postop, transient thigh numbness
55283279–18405212fused on CT16transient thigh numbness & pain
660104263–2338468fused on CT14none
71172226–16304818fused on CT14none
832903712–2535427fused on CT13none
983743614–2242464fused on CT13none
105083337–2628302fused on CT13sacroiliac joint pain syndrome
11101112618–837381fused on CT13none
125183284–2451532fused on CT12none
1384882422–2435411L5–S1 not clearly fused on CT12transient thigh numbness & pain
1424874622–2435405fused on CT11CSF leak, new leg & thigh pain
1522746734–3332439clearly fused11none
1610825225–27344612fused on CT11none
177143288–203635−1fused on CT9none
183274206–14425412fused on CT9developed atrial fibrillation (asymptomatic) postop Day 3
191082325–27334714fused on CT9none
2077664929–2031408fused on CT7S-1 screw pullout postop Day 34; revised w/open op
21006200093223fused on CT6pneumothorax
2290107213–1345538fused on CT9persistent thigh pain & dysesthesias on side of TP approach
230052243–2150577pseudarthrosis at L1–2 level (no IF)9pseudarthrosis at L1–2

* FU = follow up.

Radiographic Outcomes

With regard to coronal plane abnormalities, 16 of the patients had preoperative deformities. The mean pre- and postoperative Cobb angles were 31.4 and 11.5°, respectively, reflecting a mean 20.0° improvement in coronal alignment. The degree of sagittal deformity, as measured by the degree of lordosis between the thoracolumbar junction and S-1 endplate, was 37.4°. This increased to 45.5° following surgery and reflected an 8.0° increase in global thoracolumbar lordosis.

Fusion was demonstrated at all interbody levels as assessed on fine-cut CT scanning. Of the 7 cases with a posterolateral (without interbody) fusion at the thoracolumbar junction, 2 (28.6%) did not demonstrate radiographic fusion. In 1 case, this resulted in asymptomatic screw loosening at the 9-month follow-up. All fusion sites and levels involved the use of rhBMP-2 except in Case 21, although the dose was not standardized.

Complications

There were no intraoperative complications identified at the time of the surgical procedures or anesthesia. There were also no intraoperative complications related to the anterior approach (hollow viscus or vascular injury), except a case of pneumothorax due to exposure at T-12. There were no complications due to pedicle screw placement. In the postoperative period, one patient experienced new-onset atrial fibrillation, which was treated with medical management, and another patient developed a pneumothorax that was not identified intraoperatively. This necessitated chest tube placement and a longer hospitalization (20 days). One patient developed a CSF leak not seen at the time of the initial surgery that resulted in reexploration, which did not reveal any obvious CSF dural tear. Another patient required a return to the operating room to extend the construct to the ilium after an S-1 screw pullout on postoperative Day 34. There were no cases of superficial or deep wound infections. One patient (Case 23) underwent partial corpectomies with a significant blood loss of 3500 ml. This was due to excessive bone bleeding during the partial corpectomies and was unrelated to any vascular injury. This patient required allogeneic blood transfusions.

Thigh numbness, pain, weakness, and dysesthesias, all lateralized on the side of the anterolateral approach, were seen in 7 patients (30.4%) despite the use of continuous EMG neuromonitoring during exposure in all cases. In all but 1 case, these symptoms resolved in the postoperative period. However, this resulted in 2 patients being admitted to inpatient rehabilitation rather than discharged home. The patient in Case 21 experienced sensory and motor changes that were severe and persistent enough to require use of an assistive device for ambulation.

Discussion

The minimally invasive surgical treatment of spinal disorders is increasingly being recognized as safe and effective, with the opportunity for a reduction in pain and postoperative complications. The advantages of minimally invasive surgery have been disputed in the treatment of localized pathologies that are well managed using traditional methods, as evidenced by a recent randomized study of minimally invasive surgery versus open lumbar discectomy by Arts et al.3 In that study of 328 patients, the authors concluded that there was no advantage of tubular discectomy over traditional open surgery. However, surgeons are increasingly recognizing that as the morbidity of the procedure and/or debility of the patient increases, the advantages of a minimally invasive approach are likely to be increased.

We recently reported our initial results using minimally invasive surgical techniques to treat adult spinal deformities.22 Other authors have corroborated our experience, demonstrating that adult spinal deformities may be treatable using minimally invasive methods.2,4,18 This report summarizes our early experiences with percutaneous thoracolumbar spinal fixation for adult degenerative deformities through a combined anterior-posterior technique for deformity correction. It should be noted that these procedures and corrections have been made possible only because of the recent confluence of commercially available devices, advanced surgeon training, and modern intraoperative imaging techniques. Specifically, percutaneous pedicle screws, anterolateral approaches, neuromonitoring, specialized deformity correction instruments, and BMP have been critical in allowing spine surgeons to manage these complex pathologies in a minimally invasive fashion.

In this report, our clinical and radiographic results for these 23 patients demonstrate that an anterolateral minimally invasive surgical approach for release, anterior height restoration, and interbody fusion followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation was safe and effective. Overall, the mean correction in the coronal plane was 20° with maintenance or improvement of sagittal plane alignment (mean correction of 8°). Clinical improvement in back pain (as measured by VAS) at this early follow-up averaged 3.96 cm. This is similar to larger cohort studies of open surgery, such as the 317-patient cohort of the Spinal Deformity Study Group, which experienced a mean 3.7-point improvement on the numeric rating scale at 2-year follow-up.20 There were no cases of wound infection, with the only medical perioperative complications being the new onset of atrial fibrillation and pneumothorax in 1 case each. Ultimately, 2 patients required a return to the operating room, one to repair a CSF leak and another to revise instrumentation for an S-1 screw pullout. Overall, these complication rates compare favorably with those of other open surgical series.

In particular, the low incidence of surgical site infections has been a finding in other minimally invasive surgical series. We have found that the transpsoas approach leads to a high frequency of thigh numbness, pain, weakness, and dysesthesias, which are likely the result of retraction in proximity to the lumbosacral plexus and have been well described in previous anatomical studies.5 Seven (30.4%) of our patients experienced new thigh symptoms due to exposure through the psoas muscle, despite the use of continuous EMG and direct stimulation testing to localize the lumbosacral plexus in all cases. While the transpsoas approach has been described in numerous previous reports,6,15,16,23 there has been little mention of this complication, and it is likely underreported in the literature. We have typically avoided using this approach below the L3–4 disc space due to anatomical studies on the location and proximity of the lumbosacral plexus in the low lumbar spine. Nevertheless, despite its drawbacks, the miniopen direct lateral approach is a powerful complement to posterior minimally invasive techniques. An interbody fusion obviates the need for an extensive posterolateral exposure, which may be compromised in the setting of minimally invasive surgery. This was demonstrated in our study, which found no anterior pseudarthroses compared with a 29% pseudarthrosis rate with the posterior mini-open exposure on early follow-up.

One of the major limitations of this study is the lack of longer-term follow-up. These data would be essential in determining whether the progression of adjacent-level disease rates is acceptable, as many of the patients in this series may potentially have undergone longer fusion constructs with an open operation. In addition, while CT scans were obtained to confirm the presence of a bony fusion, it is possible for instrumentation failure or deformity progression to occur due to an occult pseudarthrosis.

It should also be noted that the radiographic outcomes in this series are likely to be inferior as an aggregate when compared with open surgical series in terms of deformity correction. Given current limitations in technology, specific reconstruction techniques, such as spinal osteotomies, remain challenging with minimally invasive surgery due to issues with blood loss, risk of neural injury, exposure, and segmental control. While this is currently an area of active research,21 it remains a tradeoff when trying to achieve lower complication rates than those associated with open surgery. Similarly, the lack of dorsal bony exposure for a fusion surface will likely result in higher rates of pseudarthrosis at segments where an interbody fusion is not used. The longer-term implications of smaller, residual deformities for curve progression, adjacent-level deterioration, or the persistence of symptoms remain unknown.

In this light, it is important to emphasize that the treatment of this patient population is often primarily focused on the management of symptoms due to spinal column incompetency at specific discs and facet joints or due to neural entrapment. The treatment is thus not necessarily directed at the deformity per se, but rather with deformity as an important subcontext. This is unlike the management of idiopathic adolescent deformities in terms of the indications for intervention, specific techniques used, and natural history of the disease.7

Conclusions

This initial clinical series demonstrates that select thoracolumbar deformities can successfully be treated using a combined anterolateral transpsoas interbody fusion followed by a posterior minimally invasive approach using percutaneous transpedicular instrumentation. Ultimately, longer-term follow-up and comparison studies will be needed to demonstrate any advantages over traditional open surgical techniques.

Disclosure

Drs. Wang and Mummaneni are consultants for DePuy Spine. Dr. Wang is also a consultant for Biomet Spine and Aesculap Spine. Dr. Mummaneni is a consultant for and has received grants from Medtronic Sofamor Danek and receives royalties from DePuy Spine.

Author contributions to the study and manuscript preparation include the following. Conception and design: MY Wang, PV Mummaneni. Acquisition of data: MY Wang. Analysis and interpretation of data: MY Wang. Drafting the article: MY Wang, PV Mummaneni. Critically revising the article: PV Mummaneni. Reviewed final version of the manuscript and approved it for submission: MY Wang, PV Mummaneni. Statistical analysis: MY Wang.

References

  • 1

    Aebi M: The adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J 14:9259482005

  • 2

    Anand NBaron EMThaiyananthan GKhalsa KGoldstein TB: Minimally invasive multilevel percutaneous correction and fusion for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis: a technique and feasibility study. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:4594672008

  • 3

    Arts MPBrand Rvan de Akker MEKoes BWBartels RHPreul WC: Tubular diskectomy vs. conventional microdiskectomy for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 302:1491582009

  • 4

    Benglis DMElhammady MSLevi ADVanni S: Minimally invasive anterolateral approaches for the treatment of back pain and adult degenerative deformity. Neurosurgery 63:3 Suppl1911962008

  • 5

    Benglis DMVanni SLevi AD: An anatomical study of the lumbosacral plexus as related to the minimally invasive transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine 10:1391442009

  • 6

    Bergey DLVillavicencio ATGoldstein TRegan JJ: Endoscopic lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine. Spine 29:168116882004

  • 7

    Bess SBoachie-Adjei OBurton DCunningham MShaffrey CShelokov A: Pain and disability determine treatment modality for older patients with adult scoliosis, while deformity guides treatment for younger patients. Spine 15:218621902009

  • 8

    Boachie-Adjei ODendrinos GKOgilvie JWBradford DS: Management of adult spinal deformity with combined anterior-posterior arthrodesis and Luque-Galveston instrumentation. J Spinal Disord 4:1311411991

  • 9

    Daffner SDVaccaro AR: Adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 32:77822003

  • 10

    Dhall SSWang MYMummaneni PV: Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 9:5605652008

  • 11

    Foley KTGupta SK: Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results. J Neurosurg 97:1 Suppl7122002

  • 12

    Guiot BHKhoo LTFessler RG: A minimally invasive technique for decompression of the lumbar spine. Spine 27:4324382002

  • 13

    Jaikumar SKim DHKam AC: History of minimally invasive spine surgery. Neurosurgery 51:5 SupplS1S142002

  • 14

    Khoo LTPalmer SLaich DTFessler RG: Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 51:5 SupplS166S1812002

  • 15

    Mayer HM: A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 22:6917001997

  • 16

    Ozgur BMAryan HEPimenta LTaylor WR: Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 6:4354432006

  • 17

    Rosen DSO'Toole JEEichholz KMHrubes MHuo DSandhu FA: Minimally invasive lumbar spinal decompression in the elderly: outcomes of 50 patients aged 75 years and older. Neurosurgery 60:5035102007

  • 18

    Scheufler KM: Technique and clinical results of minimally invasive reconstruction and stabilization of the thoracic and thoracolumbar spine with expandable cages and ventrolateral plate fixation. Neurosurgery 61:7988092007

  • 19

    Schlenk RPKowalski RJBenzel E: Biomechanics of spinal deformity. Neurosurg Focus 14:1e22003

  • 20

    Smith JSShaffrey CIBerven SGlassman SHamill CHorton W: Improvement of back pain with operative and nonoperative treatment in adults with scoliosis. Neurosurgery 65:86942009

  • 21

    Voyadzis JMGala VCO'Toole JEEicholz KMFessler RG: Minimally invasive posterior osteotomies. Neurosurgery 63:3 Suppl2042102008

  • 22

    Wang MYAnderson DGPoelstra KALudwig SC: Minimally invasive posterior fixation for spinal deformities. Neurosurgery 63:3 Suppl1972042008

  • 23

    Wang MOh BAho CLateral lumbar interbody fusion. Kim DHenn JVaccaro A: Surgical Anatomy and Techniques to the Spine PhiladelphiaSaunders2006. 272279

  • 24

    Winter RBDenis FLonstein JEDezen E: Salvage and reconstructive surgery for spinal deformity using Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation. Spine 16:8 SupplS412S4171991

  • 25

    Zheng FCammisa FP JrSandhu HSGirardi FPKhan SN: Factors predicting hospital stay, operative time, blood loss, and transfusion in patients undergoing revision posterior lumbar spine decompression, fusion, and segmental instrumentation. Spine 27:8188242002

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Article Information

Address correspondence to: Michael Y. Wang, M.D., Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1095 NW 14th Terrace, D4-6, Lois Pope LIFE Center, Miami, Florida 33136. email: mwang2@med.miami.edu.

© AANS, except where prohibited by US copyright law.

Headings

Figures

  • View in gallery

    Case 19. Radiographic examples of lumbar degenerative scoliosis treated via an anterior-posterior minimally invasive approach. A and B: Preoperative images demonstrating a 32° Cobb angle. C and D: Postoperative images demonstrating curve correction to 5° with maintenance of proper local sagittal balance.

  • View in gallery

    Case 23. Example of kyphosis treated via a minimally invasive approach. A and B: The patient presented with spinal osteomyelitis status after vertebroplasty. C: The patient underwent a partial corpectomy with expandable cage reconstruction and posterior percutaneous fixation with cannulated pedicle screws. Mini-open posterolateral fusion was performed at the sites where there was no interbody fusion. D: Follow-up CT scanning demonstrated pseudarthrosis and proximal screw loosening, although the patient did not complain of any new symptoms.

References

1

Aebi M: The adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J 14:9259482005

2

Anand NBaron EMThaiyananthan GKhalsa KGoldstein TB: Minimally invasive multilevel percutaneous correction and fusion for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis: a technique and feasibility study. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:4594672008

3

Arts MPBrand Rvan de Akker MEKoes BWBartels RHPreul WC: Tubular diskectomy vs. conventional microdiskectomy for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 302:1491582009

4

Benglis DMElhammady MSLevi ADVanni S: Minimally invasive anterolateral approaches for the treatment of back pain and adult degenerative deformity. Neurosurgery 63:3 Suppl1911962008

5

Benglis DMVanni SLevi AD: An anatomical study of the lumbosacral plexus as related to the minimally invasive transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine 10:1391442009

6

Bergey DLVillavicencio ATGoldstein TRegan JJ: Endoscopic lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine. Spine 29:168116882004

7

Bess SBoachie-Adjei OBurton DCunningham MShaffrey CShelokov A: Pain and disability determine treatment modality for older patients with adult scoliosis, while deformity guides treatment for younger patients. Spine 15:218621902009

8

Boachie-Adjei ODendrinos GKOgilvie JWBradford DS: Management of adult spinal deformity with combined anterior-posterior arthrodesis and Luque-Galveston instrumentation. J Spinal Disord 4:1311411991

9

Daffner SDVaccaro AR: Adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 32:77822003

10

Dhall SSWang MYMummaneni PV: Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 9:5605652008

11

Foley KTGupta SK: Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results. J Neurosurg 97:1 Suppl7122002

12

Guiot BHKhoo LTFessler RG: A minimally invasive technique for decompression of the lumbar spine. Spine 27:4324382002

13

Jaikumar SKim DHKam AC: History of minimally invasive spine surgery. Neurosurgery 51:5 SupplS1S142002

14

Khoo LTPalmer SLaich DTFessler RG: Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 51:5 SupplS166S1812002

15

Mayer HM: A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 22:6917001997

16

Ozgur BMAryan HEPimenta LTaylor WR: Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 6:4354432006

17

Rosen DSO'Toole JEEichholz KMHrubes MHuo DSandhu FA: Minimally invasive lumbar spinal decompression in the elderly: outcomes of 50 patients aged 75 years and older. Neurosurgery 60:5035102007

18

Scheufler KM: Technique and clinical results of minimally invasive reconstruction and stabilization of the thoracic and thoracolumbar spine with expandable cages and ventrolateral plate fixation. Neurosurgery 61:7988092007

19

Schlenk RPKowalski RJBenzel E: Biomechanics of spinal deformity. Neurosurg Focus 14:1e22003

20

Smith JSShaffrey CIBerven SGlassman SHamill CHorton W: Improvement of back pain with operative and nonoperative treatment in adults with scoliosis. Neurosurgery 65:86942009

21

Voyadzis JMGala VCO'Toole JEEicholz KMFessler RG: Minimally invasive posterior osteotomies. Neurosurgery 63:3 Suppl2042102008

22

Wang MYAnderson DGPoelstra KALudwig SC: Minimally invasive posterior fixation for spinal deformities. Neurosurgery 63:3 Suppl1972042008

23

Wang MOh BAho CLateral lumbar interbody fusion. Kim DHenn JVaccaro A: Surgical Anatomy and Techniques to the Spine PhiladelphiaSaunders2006. 272279

24

Winter RBDenis FLonstein JEDezen E: Salvage and reconstructive surgery for spinal deformity using Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation. Spine 16:8 SupplS412S4171991

25

Zheng FCammisa FP JrSandhu HSGirardi FPKhan SN: Factors predicting hospital stay, operative time, blood loss, and transfusion in patients undergoing revision posterior lumbar spine decompression, fusion, and segmental instrumentation. Spine 27:8188242002

TrendMD

Cited By

Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 75 75 49
PDF Downloads 39 39 23
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0

PubMed

Google Scholar