Minimally Invasive Surgery Shows No Benefit in Discectomy
By HospiMedica International staff writers Posted on 08 Dec 2014 |
Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for cervical or lumbar discectomy does not improve long-term function or reduce extremity pain, according to a new review.
Researchers at McMaster University (Hamilton, ON, Canada) searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for reports of randomized controlled studies of MIS versus open surgery comparing functional outcomes, pain, complications, and reoperations among patients undergoing cervical or lumbar discectomy. In all, four trials involving 431 patients in the cervical discectomy group and 10 trials involving 1,159 patients in the lumbar discectomy group underwent a subsequent meta-analysis.
The results showed that while MIS may speed up functional recovery and reduce postoperative pain, it did not improve long-term function or reduce long-term extremity pain, when compared with open surgery. The evidence also suggested overall higher rates of nerve-root injury, incidental durotomy, and reoperation with MIS. They also found that infections were more common with open surgery than with MIS, although the difference was not statistically significant. The study was published on November 27, 2014, in CMAJ Open.
“Surgeons already perform open discectomies through relatively small incisions. Selecting the right patients and providing technically adequate nerve-root decompression are probably the most important determinants of long-term outcomes,” said lead author Nathan Evaniew, MD, of the division of orthopedic surgery. “So, we were not surprised to find that outcomes are essentially the same between minimally invasive and open discectomies.”
“Many spinal surgery procedures are known to have difficult learning curves, and surgeons embarking on minimally invasive surgical techniques should obtain specialized training to minimize complications,” concluded Dr. Evanview and colleagues. “Conventional open techniques for spinal surgery are themselves technically demanding, and minimally invasive techniques are likely even more challenging.”
Minimally invasive techniques for discectomy surgery were introduced as alternatives that are potentially less morbid, but they require specialized equipment and may involve increased risks for technical complications.
Related Links:
McMaster University
Researchers at McMaster University (Hamilton, ON, Canada) searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for reports of randomized controlled studies of MIS versus open surgery comparing functional outcomes, pain, complications, and reoperations among patients undergoing cervical or lumbar discectomy. In all, four trials involving 431 patients in the cervical discectomy group and 10 trials involving 1,159 patients in the lumbar discectomy group underwent a subsequent meta-analysis.
The results showed that while MIS may speed up functional recovery and reduce postoperative pain, it did not improve long-term function or reduce long-term extremity pain, when compared with open surgery. The evidence also suggested overall higher rates of nerve-root injury, incidental durotomy, and reoperation with MIS. They also found that infections were more common with open surgery than with MIS, although the difference was not statistically significant. The study was published on November 27, 2014, in CMAJ Open.
“Surgeons already perform open discectomies through relatively small incisions. Selecting the right patients and providing technically adequate nerve-root decompression are probably the most important determinants of long-term outcomes,” said lead author Nathan Evaniew, MD, of the division of orthopedic surgery. “So, we were not surprised to find that outcomes are essentially the same between minimally invasive and open discectomies.”
“Many spinal surgery procedures are known to have difficult learning curves, and surgeons embarking on minimally invasive surgical techniques should obtain specialized training to minimize complications,” concluded Dr. Evanview and colleagues. “Conventional open techniques for spinal surgery are themselves technically demanding, and minimally invasive techniques are likely even more challenging.”
Minimally invasive techniques for discectomy surgery were introduced as alternatives that are potentially less morbid, but they require specialized equipment and may involve increased risks for technical complications.
Related Links:
McMaster University
SARS‑CoV‑2/Flu A/Flu B/RSV Sample-To-Answer Test
SARS‑CoV‑2/Flu A/Flu B/RSV Cartridge (CE-IVD)
Latest Surgical Techniques News
- AI Assisted Reading Tool for Small Bowel Video Capsule Endoscopy Detects More Lesions
- First-Ever Contact Force Pulsed Field Ablation System to Transform Treatment of Ventricular Arrhythmias
- Caterpillar Robot with Built-In Steering System Crawls Easily Through Loops and Bends
- Tiny Wraparound Electronic Implants to Revolutionize Treatment of Spinal Cord Injuries
- Small, Implantable Cardiac Pump to Help Children Awaiting Heart Transplant
- Gastrointestinal Imaging Capsule a Game-Changer in Esophagus Surveillance and Treatment
- World’s Smallest Laser Probe for Brain Procedures Facilitates Ablation of Full Range of Targets
- Artificial Intelligence Broadens Diagnostic Abilities of Conventional Coronary Angiography
- AI-Powered Surgical Visualization Tool Supports Surgeons' Visual Recognition in Real Time
- Cutting-Edge Robotic Bronchial Endoscopic System Provides Prompt Intervention during Emergencies
- Handheld Device for Fluorescence-Guided Surgery a Game Changer for Removal of High-Grade Glioma Brain Tumors
- Porous Gel Sponge Facilitates Rapid Hemostasis and Wound Healing
- Novel Rigid Endoscope System Enables Deep Tissue Imaging During Surgery
- Robotic Nerve ‘Cuffs’ Could Treat Various Neurological Conditions
- Flexible Microdisplay Visualizes Brain Activity in Real-Time To Guide Neurosurgeons
- Next-Gen Computer Assisted Vacuum Thrombectomy Technology Rapidly Removes Blood Clots