Published: 2021-06-28

Retrospective study of minimally invasive surgery verses open laminectomy or laminectomy with diskectomy

Girish K. Madhavan, Nikhil Pradeep Mambally


Background: Minimally invasive spine surgeries (MIS) are often considered superior to their open counterparts in view of smaller incisions, reduced blood loss, less post-operative pain and less hospital stay. In this study, we compared the clinical outcome of MIS and open procedure of lumbar laminectomy/discectomy. The objective of this study was to compare clinical outcome between the MIS and open procedure of lumbar laminectomy/discectomy.

Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted at Government medical college, Kottayam, Kerala, India where we studied the patients who underwent MIS and open laminectomy/laminectomy with discectomy during the period January 2018 to January 2020.

Results: We studied a total of 200 patients, among which 60% were males with a mean age of 50.58 years and 40% were females with a mean age of 53.59 years, 45.5% had L5 S1 IVDP, 30% had L4/5 IVDP, and 24.5% had L4/5 lumbar canal stenosis, 75.5% underwent laminectomy with discectomy and the rest (24.5%) underwent laminectomy with foraminotomy, 60% underwent open surgery and 40% underwent MIS.

Conclusions: MIS was superior to its open analog in terms of intra operative blood loss as well as hospital stay. But open surgeries required less operation time, less C arm exposure, had better pain control and functional outcome and less recurrence in our study.


Minimally invasive laminectomy/diskectomy, Open laminectomy/diskectomy, Comparison

Full Text:



Righesso O, Falavigna A, Avanzi O. Comparison of open discectomy with microendoscopic discectomy in lumbar disc herniations: results of a randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery. 2007;61(3):545-9.

Wu X, Zhuang S, Mao Z, Chen H. Microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: surgical technique and outcome in 873 consecutive cases. Spine. 2006;31(23):2689-94.

Lau D, Han SJ, Lee JG, Lu DC, Chou D. Minimally invasive compared to open microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation. J Clin Neurosci. 2011;18(1):81-4.

Arts MP, Brand R, Akker ME, Koes BW, Bartels RH, Peul WC, et al. Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;302(2):149-58.

Lee P, Liu JC, Fessler RG. Perioperative results following open and minimally invasive single-level lumbar discectomy. J Clin Neurosci. 2011;18(12):1667-70.

Clelland S, Goldstein JA. Minimally Invasive versus Open Spine Surgery: What Does the Best Evidence Tell Us?. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2017;8(2):194-8.

Evaniew N, Khan M, Drew B, Kwok D, Bhandari M, Ghert M. Minimally invasive versus open surgery for cervical and lumbar discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ Open. 2014;2(4):295-305.

Foley KT, Smith MM. Microendoscopic discectomy. Tech Neurosurg. 1997;3:301-7.

Perez CMJ, Smith M, Foley K. In: Perez CMJ, Fessler RG, eds. Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy. Outpatient Spinal Surgery. St. Louis: Quality Medical; 2002: 171-183.

Brock M, Kunkel P, Papavero L. Lumbar microdiscectomy: subperiosteal versus transmuscular approach and influence on the early postoperative analgesic consumption. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(4):518-22.

Smith N, Masters J, Jensen C, Khan A, Sprowson A. Systematic review of microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(11):2458-65.

Ranjan A, Lath R. Microendoscopic discectomy for prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc. Neurol India. 2006;54(2):190-4.