Comparison between Conventional Open Surgery, Percutaneous Fixation and Intermuscular Fixation.
Keywords:
Degenerative lumbar spine, open surgery, percutaneous fixation, intermuscular fixation, minimally invasive spine surgery...Abstract
Background: Degenerative lumbar spine disorders are common causes of low back pain, radiculopathy, neurogenic claudication, and functional limitation. Surgical management may be required when conservative treatment fails or when instability, stenosis, or neurological compromise is present. Objective: This review compares conventional open surgery, percutaneous fixation, and intermuscular/muscle-sparing fixation concepts in degenerative lumbar spine surgery, focusing on tissue disruption, decompression and fusion principles, perioperative morbidity, recovery, technology support, complications, and cost. Conclusion: Conventional open surgery provides direct exposure and remains suitable for complex or multilevel pathology, but is associated with greater soft-tissue disruption. Minimally invasive and percutaneous approaches aim to reduce muscle injury, blood loss, and hospital stay while maintaining comparable clinical objectives. Intermuscular and muscle-sparing principles are relevant because preservation of paraspinal muscles is central to reducing approach-related morbidity.
Downloads
References
1-D. A. Dupré, D. J. Cook, J. B. Bellotte, M. Y. Oh, D. Whiting, and B. C. Cheng, “Disc nucleus fortification for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a biomechanical study,” J. Neurosurg. Spine, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 708–714, 2016.
2- S. V. Kushchayev et al., “ABCs of the degenerative spine,” Insights Imaging, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 253–274, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1007/S13244-017-0584-Z/FIGURES/32.
3- F. Clarençon, B. Law-Ye, P. Bienvenot, É. Cormier, and J. Chiras, “The degenerative spine,” Magn. Reson. Imaging Clin., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 495–513, 2016.
4- V. M. Ravindra et al., “Degenerative lumbar spine disease: estimating global incidence and worldwide volume,” Glob. spine J., vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 784–794, 2018.
5- K. Phan et al., “Relationship between sagittal balance and adjacent segment disease in surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: meta-analysis and implications for choice of fusion technique,” Eur. spine J., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1981–1991, 2018.
6- P. C. Reid, S. Morr, and M. G. Kaiser, “State of the union: a review of lumbar fusion indications and techniques for degenerative spine disease: JNSPG 75th Anniversary Invited Review Article,” J. Neurosurg. Spine, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2019.
7- S. Ruiz-España, E. Arana, and D. Moratal, “Semiautomatic computer-aided classification of degenerative lumbar spine disease in magnetic resonance imaging,” Comput. Biol. Med., vol. 62, pp. 196–205, 2015.
8- C. J. Donnally III, A. Hanna, and M. Varacallo, “Lumbar degenerative disk disease,” 2017.
9- Y. C. Lee, M. G. T. Zotti, and O. L. Osti, “Operative management of lumbar degenerative disc disease,” Asian Spine J., vol. 10, no. 4, p. 801, 2016.
10- K. Mostofi and R. K. Khouzani, “Preliminary results of lumbar disk herniation surgery by Endoscopic Destandau Method,” J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma, vol. 9, pp. S149–S151, 2018.
11- W. K. Hsu and T. J. Jenkins, “Management of lumbar conditions in the elite athlete,” JAAOS-Journal Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg., vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 489–498, 2017.
12- F. H. Willard, A. Vleeming, M. D. Schuenke, L. Danneels, and R. Schleip, “The thoracolumbar fascia: anatomy, function and clinical considerations,” J. Anat., vol. 221, no. 6, pp. 507–536, 2012.
13- F. Bonnel and A. Dimeglio, “Vertebral column: muscles, aponeurosis, and fascia,” in Spinal anatomy: modern concepts, Springer, 2019, pp. 279–320.
14- M. Kottlors and F. X. Glocker, “Polysegmental innervation of the medial paraspinal lumbar muscles,” Eur. Spine J., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 300–306, 2008.
15- M. E. Lonnemann, S. V Paris, and G. C. Gorniak, “A morphological comparison of the human lumbar multifidus by chemical dissection,” J. Man. Manip. Ther., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 84E-92E, 2008.
16- S. Kapetanakis and N. Gkantsinikoudis, “Anatomy of lumbar facet joint: a comprehensive review,” Folia Morphol. (Warsz)., vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 799–805, 2021.
17- H. S. Kim, P. H. Wu, H. D. Raorane, and I.-T. Jang, “Generation change of practice in spinal surgery: can endoscopic spine surgery expand its indications to fill in the role of conventional open spine surgery in most of degenerative spinal diseases and disc herniations: a study of 616 spinal cases 3 years,” Neurol. India, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 1157–1165, 2020.
18- A. Sharma et al., “Incidence of dural tears in open versus minimally invasive spine surgery: a single-center prospective study,” Asian Spine J., vol. 16, no. 4, p. 463, 2021.
19- S.-H. Hong, S.-P. Suh, J. Yeom, J.-Y. Kim, S. G. Lee, and J.-W. Han, “Minimally invasive spine surgery versus open posterior instrumentation surgery for unstable thoracolumbar burst fracture,” Asian Spine J., vol. 15, no. 6, p. 761, 2021.
20- D. E. Hinojosa-Gonzalez et al., “Minimally invasive versus open surgery for spinal metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Asian Spine J., vol. 16, no. 4, p. 583, 2021.
21- J. Park, H.-J. Park, S.-M. Park, J.-Y. Choi, H.-J. Kim, and J. S. Yeom, “Learning curve for microscopic unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression surgery using the cumulative summation test for learning curve,” Medicine (Baltimore)., vol. 101, no. 40, p. e31069, 2022.
22- J. Y. Patel, V. G. Kundnani, Z. I. Merchant, S. Jain, and N. Kire, “Superior facet joint violations in single level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative study,” Asian Spine J., vol. 14, no. 1, p. 25, 2019.
23- J.-Y. Choi, S.-M. Park, H.-J. Kim, and J. S. Yeom, “Recent updates on minimally invasive spine surgery: techniques, technologies, and indications,” Asian Spine J., vol. 16, no. 6, p. 1013, 2022.
24- S. D. Middleton, R. Wagner, and J. N. A. Gibson, “Multi-level spine endoscopy: a review of available evidence and case report,” EFORT open Rev., vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 317–323, 2017.
25- W. Yingsakmongkol et al., “Clinical and radiographic comparisons among minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison with three-way matching,” Asian Spine J., vol. 16, no. 5, p. 712, 2022.
26- J. L. Goldberg, R. Härtl, and E. Elowitz, “Minimally invasive spine surgery: an overview,” World Neurosurg., vol. 163, pp. 214–227, 2022.
27- A. A. Momin and M. P. Steinmetz, “Evolution of minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery,” World Neurosurg., vol. 140, pp. 622–626, 2020.
28- Q. Jin-Tao et al., “Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta-analysis,” Eur. spine J., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1058–1065, 2015.
29- H.-J. Park et al., “Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of conventional and biportal endoscopic decompressive laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (ENDO-B trial): a protocol for a prospective, randomized, assessor-blind, multicenter trial,” BMC Musculoskelet. Disord., vol. 22, no. 1, p. 1056, 2021.
30- S.-M. Park et al., “Comparing the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive biportal endoscopic spine surgery versus conventional microscopic discectomy in single-level lumbar herniated intervertebral disc (ENDO-BH Trial): a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled equivalence trial study protocol,” Trials, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 172, 2022.
31- M.-S. Kang, K.-H. You, S.-Y. Han, S.-M. Park, J.-Y. Choi, and H.-J. Park, “Percutaneous full-endoscopic versus biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy for unilateral cervical foraminal disc disease,” Clin. Orthop. Surg., vol. 14, no. 4, p. 539, 2022.
32- S.-M. Park et al., “Biportal endoscopic versus microscopic lumbar decompressive laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial,” Spine J., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 156–165, 2020.
33- A.-K. Kaliya-Perumal, W. Limthongkul, and J. Y.-L. Oh, “Utilization of spinal navigation to facilitate hassle-free rod placement during minimally-invasive long-construct posterior instrumentation,” Asian Spine J., vol. 13, no. 3, p. 511, 2019.
34- N. A. Ransom, S. Gollogly, K.-U. Lewandrowski, and A. Yeung, “Navigating the learning curve of spinal endoscopy as an established traditionally trained spine surgeon,” J. Spine Surg., vol. 6, no. Suppl 1, p. S197, 2020.
35- G. Hanna, T. T. Kim, S.-A. Uddin, L. Ross, and J. P. Johnson, “Video-assisted thoracoscopic image-guided spine surgery: evolution of 19 years of experience, from endoscopy to fully integrated 3D navigation,” Neurosurg. Focus, vol. 50, no. 1, p. E8, 2021.
36- M. Sarkar, J. Maalouly, S. Ruparel, and J. Choi, “Sacroiliac joint fusion: fusion rates and clinical improvement using minimally invasive approach and intraoperative navigation and robotic guidance,” Asian Spine J., vol. 16, no. 6, p. 882, 2022.
37- A. Sivaganesan, N. J. Clark, R. K. Alluri, A. S. Vaishnav, and S. A. Qureshi, “Robotics and spine surgery: lessons from the personal computer and industrial revolutions,” Int. J. Spine Surg., vol. 15, no. s2, pp. S21–S27, 2021.
38- H. Frisk et al., “Feasibility and accuracy of thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement using an augmented reality head mounted device,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 2, p. 522, 2022.
39- A. Hersh et al., “Augmented reality in spine surgery: a narrative review,” HSS Journal®, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 351–358, 2021.
40- C. Tatter, A. Fletcher-Sandersjöö, O. Persson, G. Burström, E. Edström, and A. Elmi-Terander, “Fluoroscopy-Assisted C1–C2 Posterior Fixation for Atlantoaxial Instability: A Single-Center Case Series of 78 Patients,” Medicina (B. Aires)., vol. 58, no. 1, p. 114, 2022.
41- L. Pimenta et al., “Rational decision making in a wide scenario of different minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion approaches and devices,” J. Spine Surg., vol. 4, no. 1, p. 142, 2018.
42- S. S. Virk and E. Yu, “The top 50 articles on minimally invasive spine surgery,” Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976)., vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 513–519, 2017.
43- G. S.-H. Goh et al., “The influence of body mass index on functional outcomes, satisfaction, and return to work after single-level minimally-invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a five-year follow-up study,” Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976)., vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 809–817, 2019.
44- A. S. Vaishnav, Y. A. Othman, S. S. Virk, C. H. Gang, and S. A. Qureshi, “Current state of minimally invasive spine surgery,” J. Spine Surg., vol. 5, no. Suppl 1, pp. S2–S10, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.21037/JSS.2019.05.02.
45- W. Hu, J. Tang, X. Wu, L. Zhang, and B. Ke, “Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review of complications,” Int. Orthop., vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 1883–1890, 2016.
46- R. Qin et al., “Minimally invasive versus traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-level spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” World Neurosurg., vol. 122, pp. 180–189, 2019.
47- A. Hockley et al., “Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery: an analysis of opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and perioperative characteristics,” Glob. spine J., vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 624–629, 2019.
48- N. Evaniew et al., “Minimally invasive tubular lumbar discectomy versus conventional open lumbar discectomy: an observational study from the canadian spine outcomes and research network,” Glob. Spine J., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1293–1303, 2023.
49- L. E. Miller, S. Bhattacharyya, and J. Pracyk, “Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” World Neurosurg., vol. 133, pp. 358–365, 2020.
50- S. Vertuani et al., “A cost-effectiveness analysis of minimally invasive versus open surgery techniques for lumbar spinal fusion in Italy and the United Kingdom,” Value Heal., vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 810–816, 2015.
51- Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, Rampersaud YR. Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(3):E191–E202.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
