Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • News & Views
  • Published:

Spine surgery

Minimally invasive spinal surgery—does size matter?

Nature Reviews Neurology volume 8, pages 363–365 (2012)Cite this article

Subjects

The past two decades have witnessed the emergence of minimally invasive techniques in most surgical specialties, but their role in spinal surgery remains controversial. A recent study has compared outcomes in minimally invasive versus open spinal fusion surgery. Does the size of the surgical approach really matter?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Lee, K. H., Yue, W. M., Yeo, W., Soeharno, H. & Tan, S. B. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur. Spine J. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2281-4.

  2. Mirza, S. K. & Deyo, R. A. Systematic review of randomized trials comparing lumbar fusion surgery to nonoperative care for treatment of chronic back pain. Spine 32, 816–823 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arts, M. P. et al. Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 302, 149–158 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Arts, M. P. et al. Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for the treatment of lumbar disk herniation: 2-year results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery 69, 135–144 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Weinstein, J. N. et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA 296, 2441–2450 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Peul, W. C. et al. Surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment for sciatica. N. Engl. J. Med. 356, 2245–2256 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. West, S. G. et al. Alternatives to the randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Public Health 98, 1359–1366 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnston, B. C. et al. The use of expertise-based randomized controlled trials to assess spinal manipulation and acupuncture for low back pain: a systematic review. Spine 33, 914–918 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank M. Wood and R. Kirollos for critically reading an early version of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Academic Neurosurgery Unit, Box 166, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 2QQ, UK

    Richard Mannion

Authors
  1. Richard Mannion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

R. Mannion has received honoraria and research support from Medtronic, and grant support from Pfizer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mannion, R. Minimally invasive spinal surgery—does size matter?. Nat Rev Neurol 8, 363–365 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2012.113

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2012.113

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing