Minimally invasive techniques for many different kinds of surgeries are becoming more popular. But for neck and low-back herniated disc procedures, McMaster University researchers have found the minimally invasive route may not be better than traditional open surgery.
At least 5 per cent of the population is affected by neck and lower back spinal disc diseases that cause pain, disability and loss of income.
When nonsurgical treatment fails, doctors sometimes recommend surgery. Traditional procedures to remove herniated disc material, called "open" discectomies, are already done through "relatively small incisions."
The researchers reviewed existing trials and found that while minimally invasive procedures can lower recovery time and pain, they don't improve patients' long-term function or reduce their long-term pain compared to traditional open discectomy.
Moreover, minimally invasive procedures require extra training and equipment, and there are more risks for technical complications, the researchers found.
- Why do people go for minimally invasive spine surgery?
-
Many people benefit greatly from spinal surgery, including benefits from minimally invasive spinal surgery procedures. We usually do not see these people in our office. We see the people who had surgery and did not get the hoped-for benefits. We see the people who had the surgery and are trying to avoid secondary surgery. We see the people who had surgery on one segment of their spine and choose not to have it on another segment.
For some people, the reward of surgery is in the promise. You have had back pain for some time. You did physical therapy, tried painkillers, and anti-inflammatories, possibly epidural and cortisone injections. The back pain is still there and your surgeon(s) are recommending surgery. Your surgical team may discuss various surgical options but the one that may have interested you the most is the minimally invasive spine surgery option. The idea is that somehow this is a “smaller surgery.” But is it really? Is it less risky?
