Minimally Invasive Techniques in Lumbar Spine Surgery Based on Analysis of Recovery Time and Recurrence Rates
Keywords:
Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) Surgery, Micro endoscopic Discectomy, Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Recurrence Rate, Recovery TimeAbstract
Minimally invasive spine (MIS) techniques have become more common for conditions of the lumbar spine, including disc prolapse and degenerative conditions, and may have some benefits with shorter recovery time and fewer peri-operative complications. This study was designed to evaluate recovery time data and recurrence figures for different types of minimally invasive surgical techniques used for lumbar spine pathologies: endoscopic approaches, microendoscopic techniques, and minimally invasive fusion. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 117 patients who underwent minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery from June 2025 to June 2026 in the hospitals of Baghdad, Iraq. The patients were divided into three groups: Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) surgery, Micro endoscopic Discectomy (MED), and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF). The outcome measures were Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), operative time, hospital stay, complication rates, and recurrence at 12-month follow-up. Additionally, UBE had the shortest mean operative time (62.4±17.8 minutes) than MED (88.6±24.1 minutes) and MIS-TLIF (215.3±38.2 minutes). On average, hospital stay was significantly shorter in the UBE group (1.8±0.7 days) than in the MED group (3.2±1.1 days) and MIS-TLIF group (5.4±1.6 days). VAS scores at 6 months showed greater improvement in UBE (1.2±0.8) compared to MED (1.8±1.1) and MIS-TLIF (2.1±1.3) (p=0.03). UBE had a 3.9% recurrence rate, MED a 11.9%, and MIS-TLIF a 2.7%. Excellent/good neurological recovery was achieved in 94.7% of UBE, 83.3% of MED, and 89.2% of MIS-TLIF patients. In summary, minimally invasive techniques have good recovery and recurrence rates. UBE has better short-term results and lower recurrence rates than MED, and MIS-TLIF has excellent durability and almost no recurrence, but with longer recovery.
References
[1] A. A. Momin and M. P. Steinmetz, “Evolution of minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery,” World Neurosurgery, vol. 140, pp. 622–626, 2020.
[2] L. A. Snyder, J. O’Toole, K. M. Eichholz, et al., “The technological development of minimally invasive spine surgery,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2014, Art. no. 293582, 2014.
[3] A. V. Khandge, S. B. Sharma, and J. S. Kim, “The evolution of transforaminal endoscopic spine surgery,” World Neurosurgery, vol. 145, pp. 643–656, 2021.
[4] S. Sharif and A. Afsar, “Learning curve and minimally invasive spine surgery,” World Neurosurgery, vol. 119, pp. 472–478, 2018.
[5] E. M. Valsamis, T. Chouari, C. O’Dowd-Booth, et al., “Learning curves in surgery: Variables, analysis and applications,” Postgraduate Medical Journal, vol. 94, pp. 525–530, 2018.
[6] F. A. Schmidt, T. Wong, S. Kirnaz, et al., “Development of a curriculum for minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS),” Global Spine Journal, vol. 10, no. 2 Suppl., pp. 122S–125S, 2020.
[7] M. Sarkar, J. Maalouly, S. Ruparel, et al., “Sacroiliac joint fusion: Fusion rates and clinical improvement using minimally invasive approach and intraoperative navigation and robotic guidance,” Asian Spine Journal, vol. 16, pp. 882–889, 2022.
[8] P. S. Page, S. G. Ammanuel, and D. T. Josiah, “Evaluation of endoscopic versus open lumbar discectomy: A multi-center retrospective review utilizing the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database,” Cureus, vol. 14, Art. no. e25202, 2022.
[9] W. X. Sun, W. Q. Huang, H. Y. Li, H. S. Wang, S. L. Guo, J. Dong, B. L. Chen, and Y. P. Lin, “Clinical efficacy of robotic spine surgery: An updated systematic review of 20 randomized controlled trials,” EFORT Open Reviews, vol. 8, pp. 841–853, 2023.
[10] A. Ton, N. Hang, W. Liu, R. Liu, P. C. Hsieh, J. C. Wang, R. J. Hah, and R. K. Alluri, “Top 25 most-cited articles on robotic-assisted lumbar spine surgery,” International Journal of Spine Surgery, vol. 18, pp. 37–46, 2024.
[11] P. Shahi, O. Maayan, D. Shinn, S. Dalal, J. Song, K. Araghi, D. Melissaridou, A. Vaishnav, K. Shafi, Y. Pompeu, et al., “Floor-mounted robotic pedicle screw placement in lumbar spine surgery: An analysis of 1050 screws,” Neurospine, vol. 20, pp. 577–586, 2023.
[12] T. E. Komolafe, L. Zhou, W. Zhao, J. Guo, Z. Li, Z. Fan, B. F. Komolafe, W. Wei, and O. W. Samuel, “Advancing robot-guided techniques in lumbar spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Expert Review of Medical Devices, vol. 21, pp. 765–779, 2024.
[13] J. Han, J. Guo, X. Ma, G. Zhang, S. Han, H. Zhang, H. Liu, M. Chen, and Y. Wang, “The cortical bone trajectory screw technique assisted by the Mazor Renaissance robotic system as a salvage strategy for failed lumbar spine surgery: Technical note and case series,” Journal of Pain Research, vol. 16, pp. 2971–2980, 2023.
[14] H. Karimi, N. Taylor, J. Patel, L. Wiepert, R. I. Riesenburger, and J. Kryzanski, “Practice pattern variations in the use of neuromonitoring, image guidance, and robotics for lumbar pedicle screw placement based on a nationwide neurosurgery survey,” World Neurosurgery, vol. 192, pp. e539–e546, 2024.
[15] M. J. Gouzoulis, A. E. Seddio, A. D. Winter, S. S. Jabbouri, J. R. Zhu, D. R. Rubio, A. G. Varthi, and J. N. Grauer, “Robotic-assisted versus navigation-assisted posterior lumbar fusion: A national database study,” Spine, vol. 49, pp. 1483–1487, 2024.
[16] Y. Gezercan, G. Çavuş, A. I. Ökten, et al., “Single-stage posterolateral transpedicular approach with 360-degree stabilization and vertebrectomy in primary and metastatic tumors of the spine,” World Neurosurgery, vol. 95, pp. 214–221, 2016.
[17] A. Phanphaisarn, J. Patumanond, J. Settakorn, et al., “Prevalence and survival patterns of patients with bone metastasis from common cancers in Thailand,” Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, vol. 17, pp. 4335–4340, 2016.
[18] S. Sohn, J. Kim, C. K. Chung, et al., “A nationwide epidemiological study of newly diagnosed spine metastasis in the adult Korean population,” The Spine Journal, vol. 16, pp. 937–945, 2016.
[19] N. Fang, Z. Wang, J. Jiang, et al., “Nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis caused by ligamentum flavum hypertrophy: A review,” Medicine, vol. 103, no. 27, Art. no. e38782, 2024.
[20] J. Patel, I. Osburn, A. Wanaselja, and R. Nobles, “Optimal treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: An update,” Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 598–603, 2017.
[21] K. N. Malik, C. Giberson, M. Ballard, N. Camp, and J. Chan, “Pain management interventions in lumbar spinal stenosis: A literature review,” Cureus, published online Aug. 25, 2023.
[22] S. Jain, T. Deer, D. Sayed, et al., “Minimally invasive lumbar decompression: A review of indications, techniques, efficacy and safety,” Pain Management, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 331–348, 2020.
[23] H. Yuan and X. Yi, “Lumbar spinal stenosis and minimally invasive lumbar decompression: A narrative review,” vol. 16, pp. 3707–3724, 2023.
[24] T. R. Deer, T. B. Chafin, S. J. Costandi, et al., “The MOTION study: Two-year results of a real-world randomized controlled trial of the mild® procedure for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis,” Pain Practice, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 109–119, 2024.
