Takashi Tomita

In the past two decades, minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) techniques have been developed for spinal surgery. Historically, minimizing invasiveness in decompression surgery was initially reported as a MISS technique. In recent years, MISS techniques have also been applied for spinal stabilization techniques, which were defined as minimally invasive spine stabilization (MISt), including percutaneous pedicle screws (PPS) fixation, lateral lumbar interbody fusion, balloon kyphoplasty, percutaneous vertebroplasty, cortical bone trajectory, and cervical total disc replacement. These MISS techniques typically provide many advantages such as preservation of paraspinal musculature, less blood loss, a shorter operative time, less postoperative pain, and a lower infection rate as well as being more cost-effective compared to traditional open techniques. However, even MISS techniques are associated with several limitations including technical difficulty, training opportunities, surgical cost, equipment cost, and radiation exposure. These downsides of surgical treatments make conservative treatments more feasible option. In the future, medicine must become “minimally invasive” in the broadest sense—for all patients, conventional surgeries, medical personnel, hospital management, nursing care, and the medical economy. As a new framework for the treatment of spinal diseases, the concept of minimally invasive spinal treatment (MIST) has been proposed.

Although minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is the most common procedure in minimally invasive spine stabilization (MISt), details of the technique remain unclear. This technical report shows the mid-long-term clinical outcomes in patients who underwent posterior oblique square decompression (POSDe) with the three-step wanding technique of tubular MIS-TLIF for degenerative lumbar disease. Tubular MIS-TLIF (POSDe) was performed on 50 patients (males, 19; age, 69.2 ± 9.6 years), and traditional open surgery was performed (OS) on 27 (males, 4; age, 67.9 ± 6.6 years). We evaluated the clinical outcomes using the Visual Analog Scale for back pain, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, and JOA Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire. We also assessed the fusion rate using the Bridwell grading system with computed tomography or plain radiography for at least 2 years postoperatively. Although there was no significant difference in the improvement rate of JOA scores between the two groups, the mean operation time and blood loss were significantly lower with MIS-TLIF than with OS. In the tubular MIS-TLIF group, there were no cases of deep wound infection; four cases had a pseudarthrosis, two had dural injury, and three had cage retropulsion. We revealed good clinical outcomes in patients who underwent POSDe.

Background and Objectives: Clinicians are required to manage a growing number of elderly patients with several medical comorbidities, and invasive surgical treatments are sometimes not advisable for these patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of minimally invasive intraspinal canal treatment, trans-sacral canal plasty (TSCP), for patients with and without failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). Materials and Methods: A multicenter analysis was conducted. TSCP was performed in patients with chronic low back pain and leg pain due to lumbar spinal disorders. An adhesiolysis by TSCP was carried out, then a mixture of steroid and local anesthesia was injected. Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for low back pain and leg pain, and complications were evaluated. Results: A total of 271 patients with a minimum 6-month follow-up were enrolled. There were 80 patients who had a history of previous lumbar spinal surgery (F group), and 191 patients without previous lumbar spinal surgery (N group). There were no significant differences in sex and age between the two groups. VAS scores for low back pain (N group/F group) preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and 1 month, 3 months and 6 months postoperatively, were 51/52 mm, 24/26 mm, 33/34 mm, 30/36 mm, and 30/36 mm, respectively. VAS scores for leg pain were 69/67 mm, 28/27 mm, 39/41 mm, 36/43 mm, and 32/40 mm, respectively. Both VAS scores for low back pain and leg pain were significantly decreased from baseline to final follow-up in both groups (p < 0.01). However, VAS scores for leg pain at 3 months and 6 months postoperatively were significantly higher in F group (p < 0.05). There were three catheter breakages (2/3 in F group), and one dural tear in F group. Conclusions: TSCP significantly reduced both VAS scores for low back and leg pain in patients with and without FBSS. However, co-existence of intractable epidural adhesion might be associated with less improvement in FBSS.