What are the significant differences between traditional and minimally invasive spine surgery?
Open spine surgery is still the default choice for most cases of spinal disorders. However, there are some circumstances where minimally invasive spine procedures offer several advantages over traditional open techniques. Minimally invasive spine surgery is now considered the gold standard for treating herniated discs, degenerative disc disease, stenosis, scoliosis, and other common spine conditions.
The main difference between minimally invasive and traditional open spine surgery is its performance. Traditional open spine surgery involves making large incisions along the length of the spine. During this procedure, surgeons must cut through muscle, bone, ligaments, blood vessels, nerves, and organs. In addition, they often use retractors to hold the tissues out of the way while working inside the body. These incisions can cause significant scarring and prolonged healing periods.
Minimally invasive spine surgery, however, uses small incisions and less tissue trauma. First, surgeons work around the spine through tiny incisions, usually no larger than one inch. Then, they insert surgical instruments through those openings rather than cutting into the patient’s skin. This technique prevents extensive tissue damage.
There are many benefits of minimally invasive spine surgery over traditional open spine surgery.
Less Pain
Traditional open spine surgery requires patients to lie completely flat during the entire procedure. They lie flat, which causes extreme discomfort because the muscles surrounding the spine contract and pull against the bones. Patients report feeling intense pressure and pain throughout the entire process.
Minimally invasive spine surgery does not require patients to lie flat during the procedure. Instead, they remain seated upright. This upright position helps reduce the amount of pain caused by the contraction of the muscles.