An attempt at clinically defining and assessing minimally invasive surgery compared with traditional “open” spinal surgery
==============================================================================================================================

* Paul C. McAfee
* Steven R. Garfin
* W. Blake Rodgers
* R. Todd Allen
* Frank Phillips
* Choll Kim

## Abstract

**Background** The goal of this editorial and literature review is to define the term “minimally invasive surgery” (MIS) as it relates to the spine and characterize methods of measuring parameters of a spine MIS technique.

**Methods** This report is an analysis of 105,845 cases of spinal surgery in unmatched series and 95,161 cases in paired series of open compared with MIS procedures performed by the same surgeons to develop quantitative criteria to analyze the success of MIS.

**Results** A lower rate of deep infection proved to be a key differentiator of spinal MIS. In unmatched series the infection rate for 105,845 open traditional procedures ranged from 2.9% to 4.3%, whereas for MIS, the incidence of infection ranged from 0% to 0.22%. For matched paired series with the open and MIS procedures performed by the same surgeons, the rate of infection in open procedures ranged from 1.5% to 10%, but for spine MIS, the rate of deep infection was much lower, at 0% to 0.2%. The published ranges for open versus MIS infection rates do not overlap or even intersect, which is a clear indication of the superiority of MIS for one specific clinical outcome measure (MIS proves superior to open spine procedures in terms of lower infection rate).

**Conclusions** It is difficult, if not impossible, to validate that an operative procedure is “less invasive” or “more minimally invasive” than traditional surgical procedures unless one can establish a commonly accepted definition of MIS. Once a consensus definition or precise definition of MIS is agreed upon, the comparison shows a higher infection rate with traditional spinal exposures versus MIS spine procedures.

*   MIS
*   Minimally invasive surgery
*   Infection

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of the spine should produce clinical, radiographic, and functional outcomes that are similar to or better than those of comparable, open, more extensile surgeries designed to achieve the same goals. “The primary goal of minimally invasive spinal surgery is to minimize paraspinal muscle retraction and dissection in the *hope* that this will lead to reduced blood loss and postoperative pain, acceleration of the recovery period, and improved clinical outcomes.” [italics added].1 These goals are true of all spinal surgical techniques and are not unique to spine MIS. The first published articulation of the phrase “minimally invasive surgery” is credited to John E. Wickham in the *British Medical Journal* in 1987.2 He was a urologist who founded the first clinical department of MIS and defined it as “minimal damage of biologic tissue at the point of entrance of surgical instruments.” From 1987 to the present, MIS has undergone a continuous evolution, evidenced by the increasing number of patents using descriptions such as “trocar,” “expandable trocar,” “endoscopic,” “microendoscopic,” “percutaneous expandable retractor,” “three- and four-blade retractors,” and “less invasive surgery.” It is difficult to precisely define the exact limits of spine MIS because (1) the goals and outcomes of open surgery are to diminish the muscle damage, estimated blood loss, and length of stay (ie, the same metrics of MIS) and (2) MIS is in evolution, with continuous, incremental innovation addressing specific approach and surgically related challenges. Although it is difficult to precisely outline the limits of where MIS begins and where open surgery ends, it is essential to understand this to (1) evaluate the results of MIS, (2) compare outcomes, (3) evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MIS, and (4) analyze the incidence of MIS complications.

It is generally recognized that MIS principles are predicated on using “smaller incisions” during access of an MIS surgical corridor: (1) avoiding surgically induced muscle damage from the approach as well as retraction; (2) decreasing disruption of tendon attachments (eg, for posterior lumbar surgery, the multifidus muscle); (3) using natural anatomic planes when possible; and (4) minimizing collateral soft-tissue injury, particularly in adjacent segments. Successful perioperative spine MIS, relative to more invasive or traditional open approaches, would potentially decrease blood loss, postoperative pain, postoperative complications, surgical time (not by itself an absolute goal), and length of hospital stay, the anticipated result of which is a speedier return to normal function. All of these factors should enhance the risk-benefit ratio of spine surgery and improve overall outcomes, leading to more substantial gains in quality-adjusted life-years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

The first requirement is a reference point. MIS has to be minimally invasive compared with something: Is it compared with current conventional open surgery? Is it compared with the standard of care 5 years previously?

MIS does not necessarily mean percutaneous surgery or surgery through a tube, but it does imply less extensile and less disruptive surgery than conventional, comparable surgeries that are currently performed. All investigators probably agree that “percutaneous surgery” includes placing the working instruments through small skin openings, but what is “miniopen” surgery? Although MIS should not be defined simply as making a smaller incision, a small incision is often a characteristic of MIS procedures. In addition, a surgical procedure is not MIS simply because it is performed by working through a tube, although specialized instrumentation for access and creation of a surgical corridor are commonly features of MIS. O'Toole et al.3 defined MIS as “any spinal procedure performed through a tubular retractor system.” This definition is probably not precise enough now that thousands of MIS procedures have been reported using expandable tube systems with sections of a single tube that divide into 3 or 4 sections of semilunar tubes that spread apart (eg, far lateral–approach retractor systems, such as extreme lateral interbody fusion [XLIF], direct lateral interbody fusion [DLIF], and lateral lumbar interbody fusion [LLIF]). With modern innovations, it is not straightforward as to what exactly defines a “tube.” What are the objective reproducible metrics of how one quantitates a more minimally invasive approach? Most likely, they are a combination of approach- and surgery-related variables and include the size of the skin incision as well as the extent of the local and collateral tissue injury during the approach and surgical procedure.

## Methods

How do we evaluate the procedural, clinical, and long-term effectiveness of an innovative procedure and decide whether it is favorable from an MIS perspective? One metric is not sufficient (length of incision, global cost decrease, and so on). The evaluation requires a balanced scorecard–type approach with 4 equally weighted criteria.4 We propose 4 major perspectives that can be used to differentiate current spine MIS (including mini-open procedures) and traditional open procedures. They all should be viewed together in a composite approach. The factors involved are (1) local zone of injury (cytokine elevation, muscle creatine phosphokinase elevation (CPK), and so on), which are primarily measures of collateral damage of muscle injury; (2) operative patient demographics that are directly dependent on the surgery/approach (estimated blood loss, length of surgery, fluoroscopy time, radiation exposure, wound drainage, postoperative seroma formation, and so on); (3) hospitalization demographics that are indirectly related to the surgery approach (length of hospital stay, length of stay in an intensive care unit, transfusion rates, discharge to a skilled nursing facility, or length of stay in a rehabilitation hospital); and (4) econometrics or global cost (direct and indirect) to society (implant costs, cost of hospitalization, navigation costs, radiographic imaging costs, return to work, cost of patient being lost to the workforce) (Table 1). 

View this table:
[Table 1](https://www.ijssurgery.com/content/5/4/125/T1)

Table 1 
Quantitative criteria to define MIS of spine: four major categories

First, open procedures are easily identified by nearly every spine surgeon and need not be further defined but can simply be explained as any traditional approach and/or dissection of any and all anatomic structures required by the operative surgeon in an open fashion, enabling him or her to identify all elements of the surgical pathology in question and subsequently safely address that pathology with acceptable means of treatment, whether decompression, stabilization, reconstruction, or otherwise.

Second, for MIS versus an open technique, there should be a distinction in definitions. Strictly defined, “minimally invasive” implies that the approach is less invasive than open approaches. “Less invasive” may or may not be minimally invasive, because “minimally invasive” implies that the approach to the spinal pathology was the least invasive based on available techniques and technology. Instead of a strict definition, it can be a continuum, such that MIS includes all techniques where a less invasive approach was performed on this continuum. We can then define where each technique falls on this continuum relative to its open counterpart. For example, anterior lumbar interbody fusions at the thoracolumbar junction through a far lateral approach can be compared with their counterpart of an open, thoracoabdominal approach, which crosses the diaphragm and has significant associated morbidities.

Finally, the econometrics of MIS and open techniques may need to be further substratified into acute/perioperative (including in-hospital stay data), subacute, and chronic or long-term. This is especially advantageous when looking at the impact of MIS on cost-effectiveness and future studies. The data thus far suggest that a favorable impact of MIS occurs mainly on changes occurring during the in-hospital stay, or acute stage, and possibly during the subacute stages of surgical recovery and resource utilization. Although this may lower the number of days off from work and has substantial societal implications for productivity and the like, only when MIS is correlated with durable improvements in validated outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, Short Form 36, and so on) will the incremental cost-benefit ratios of MIS versus open surgery become apparent. If outcomes fall over a period of 2 to 4 years compared with stable or improving outcomes with open or nonsurgical treatments, a reassessment of MIS would be required.

## Results

### Criteria example: Lower infection rate as a key differentiator of spinal MIS

One of the clearest advantages of spinal MIS has been reports of lower infection rates compared with open procedures (Table 1, section 2 [operative patient demographics]). O'Toole et al.3 reported 1,338 spinal MIS procedures in 1,274 patients with only 3 postoperative surgical-site infections (SSIs); 2 were superficial and 1 deep. They reported a procedural rate of SSIs for simple decompressive procedures of 0.1% and a rate of only 0.7% for MIS fusion/ fixation. The total SSI rate for the overall group was 0.2%. They compared this with a reported rate of SSIs of 2% to 6% for non-MIS spinal procedures in large clinical series.

Poelstra et al.5–10 reported a large series of MIS trauma procedures performed at the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Hospital as life-saving measures in extreme polytrauma cases called “damage control spine surgery.” They have an ongoing prospective series comprised of 80 multilevel cases with 2 infections (2.5% incidence). This is better than their historical infection rate of 4% to 18% with the same surgical protocols but using an open surgical approach for the comparative spinal surgery.

In documenting a differential infection rate with MIS versus conventional surgery, Andreshak et al.11 reported a 13% infection rate for obese patients (defined as >20% over ideal body weight) with traditional open spinal procedures. Rodgers and Michitsch12 analyzed a subset of obese patients. They reported a 4.2% infection rate in 144 obese patients undergoing instrumented open posterior lumbar fusions. Rodgers et al.13 performed a retrospective review of 313 patients operated on from October 2006 to July 2008 undergoing MIS far lateral interbody fusions—156 were obese (defined as body mass index >30) and 157 were nonobese. There were no SSIs in this group. Within the same institution, with the same surgeons, this was an improvement from a 4.2% infection rate in 144 open procedures to 0% in 156 MIS procedures in obese patients.

Perhaps the most compelling argument in documenting a lower infection rate of MIS compared with open procedures is shown in Table 2. Three large series comprising over 110,000 open spine procedures resulted in an infection rate range of 2.9% to 4.3%. The infection rates for 4 independent MIS procedures varying from microendoscopic discectomy to MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion ranged from 0% to 0.22%. Separately, there are 4 reported matched series of open versus MIS procedures. All show a lower infection rate for the MIS alternative procedure: Rodgers et al., 0% versus 4.2%; Rovner et al., 0% versus 3.6%; Isaacs et al., 0% versus 10%; and Smith et al. 0.1% versus 1.5%. The matched series are the most compelling argument that the lower infection rate seen with MIS cannot be attributed to less severe pathology in the presenting patients. Table 3 shows the differential infection rate for additional clinical series of legacy procedures compared with MIS spine procedures and correlates this with the clinical parameters, such as number of levels, vertebral location, and whether instrumentation was used. This comparison also shows a higher infection rate with traditional spinal exposures versus MIS spine procedures. 

View this table:
[Table 2](https://www.ijssurgery.com/content/5/4/125/T2)

Table 2 
Incidence of postoperative wound infections: “Open” compared with MIS procedures

View this table:
[Table 3](https://www.ijssurgery.com/content/5/4/125/T3)

Table 3 
Historical infection rates

## Discussion

It is difficult, if not impossible, to validate that an operative procedure is “less invasive” or “more minimally invasive” than traditional surgical procedures unless one can establish a commonly accepted definition of MIS. Once a consensus definition or precise definition of MIS is agreed upon, we can develop a common language and common objective metrics to statistically validate the advantages of minimally invasive techniques in spinal surgery. At present, the key concepts of MIS rest on efforts to avoid muscle crush injury by avoiding self-retaining retractors and instead using tubular-type table-mounted retractors combined with applications for soft-tissue dilation techniques rather than stripping techniques. The use of these simple strategies to decrease the morbidity of the surgical exposure has led to noticeable improvements in a key area of surgical risk, that is, postoperative infections. As the field of spinal surgery continues to evolve to less invasive techniques, additional improvements in patient outcomes are anticipated.

*   © 2011 SAS - The International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

## References

1.  Seldomridge JA, Phillips FM (2005) Minimally invasive spine surgery. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 36:224–32.
    
    

2.  Wickham JE (1987) The new surgery. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 295:1581–2.
    
    [FREE Full Text](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6MzoiUERGIjtzOjExOiJqb3VybmFsQ29kZSI7czozOiJibWoiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTM6IjI5NS82NjEzLzE1ODEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoxODoiL2lqc3MvNS80LzEyNS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

3.  O'Toole JE, Eichholz KM, Fessler RG (2009) Surgical site infection rates after minimally invasive spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 11:471–6.
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3171/2009.5.SPINE08633&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19929344&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom) 

4.  Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1992) The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review 70:71–9.
    
    [PubMed](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10119714&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1992GY39500008&link_type=ISI) 

5.  Poelstra KA, Kane B, Gelb D, Ludwig SL Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Spine Arthroplasty Society (May 6–9, 2008, Miami, FL), Feasibility of damage control spine surgery. Minimally invasive spinal stabilization in the acute setting for complex thoracolumbar fractures.
    
    

6.  Poelstra KA, Kane B, Gelb D, Ludwig SC Presented at the World Congress of Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery and Techniques (June 5–8, 2008, Honolulu, Hawaii), 12 Months follow-up on damage control spinal stabilization.
    
    

7.  Poelstra KA, Gelb D, Kane B, Ludwig S Presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the North American Spine Society (October 14–18, 2008, Toronto, Ontario, Canada), The feasibility of damage control spinal stabilization (MISS) in the acute setting for complex thoracolumbar fractures.
    
    

8.  Poelstra KA Presented at the Federation of Spine Associations/American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Meeting (March 1, 2009, Las Vegas, Nevada), Update on long construct MIS surgery for the spine.
    
    

9.  Wang MY, Anderson DG, Poelstra KA, Ludwig SC (2008) Minimally invasive posterior fixation. Neurosurgery 63S:197–203.
    
    

10. Poelstra KA, Gelb D, Kane B, Ludwig S (2008) The feasibility of damage control spinal stabilization (MISS) in the acute setting for complex thoracolumbar fractures. Spine J 8:89S.
    
    

11. Andreshak TG, An HS, Hall J, Stein B (1997) Lumbar spine surgery in the obese patient. J Spinal Disord 10:376–9.
    
    [PubMed](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9355052&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1997YC19200003&link_type=ISI) 

12. Rodgers WB, Michitsch RU Presented at the 8th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Spine (September 14, 2001, Kyoto, Japan), Instrumented lumbar fusions in the morbidly obese.
    
    

13. Rodgers WB, Cox CS, Gerber EJ (2010) Early complications of extreme lateral interbody fusion in the obese. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:393–7.
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181b31729&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20084027&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom) 

14. Spangfort E (1972) The lumbar disc herniation. A computer aided analysis of 2,504 operations. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 142:1–95.
    
    [PubMed](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=4516334&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom) 

15. Smith J, Shaffrey C, Sancur C, et al. (2011) Rates of infection after spine surgery based on 108,419 procedures: a report from the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Committee. Spine J 36:556–63.
    
    

16. Daubs MD, Lenke LG, Cheh G, Stobbs G, Bridwell KH (2007) Adult spinal deformity surgery. Complications and outcomes in patients over age 40. Spine J 32:2238–44.
    
    

17. Perez-Cruet MJ, Foley KT, Isaacs RE, et al. (2002) Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy: technical note. Neurosurgery 51(Suppl):S129–36.
    
    [PubMed](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12234440&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000179064000022&link_type=ISI) 

18. Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT (2005) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(Suppl):S1–6.
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/01.bsd.0000132291.50455.d0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15699793&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000227212000001&link_type=ISI) 

19. Selznick LA, Shamji MF, Isaacs RE (2009) Minimally invasive interbody fusion for revision lumbar surgery: technical feasibility and safety. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:207–13.
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BSD.0b013e318169026f&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19412024&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom) 

20. Rovner J, Schwender J, Mullaney K, et al. (2008) A comparison of infection rates in minimally invasive versus open TLIFs: a single surgeon retrospective review. Spine J 8:9S–10S.
    
    

21. Isaacs RE, Hyde J, Goodrich JA, Rodgers WB, Phillips FM (2010) A prospective, non-randomized, multicenter evaluation of extreme lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adult scoliosis: perioperative outcomes and complications. Spine 26S:S322–30.
    
    

22. Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV (2008) Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with longterm follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 9:560–5.
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3171/SPI.2008.9.08142&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19035748&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000261205300010&link_type=ISI) 

23. Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Patterson JR (2011) Intraoperative and early postoperative complications in extreme lateral interbody fusion: an analysis of 600 cases. Spine 36:26–33.
    
    [PubMed](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21192221&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom) 

24. Dakwar E, Cardona RF, Smith DA, et al. (2010) Early outcomes and safety of the minimally invasive, lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach for adult degenerative scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus 28:E8.
    
    [PubMed](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20568923&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom) 

25. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, Nelson EL, Mason A (2010) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 1:12.
    
    [PubMed](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20657693&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom) 

26. McAfee PC, Regan JR, Zdeblick T, et al. (1995) The incidence of complications in endoscopic anterior thoracolumbar spinal reconstructive surgery. A prospective multicenter study comprising the first 100 consecutive cases. Spine 20:1624–32.
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00007632-199507150-00012&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7570179&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1995RK23300012&link_type=ISI) 

27. Brau SA (2002) Mini-open approach to the spine for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: description of the procedure, results and complications. Spine J 2:216–23.
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1529-9430(02)00184-5&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=14589496&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom) 

28. Rihn JA, Patel P, Makada J, et al. (2009) Complications associated with single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 9:623–9.
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.spinee.2009.04.004&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19482519&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000268786300002&link_type=ISI) 

29. Faciszewski T, Winter RB, Lonstein JE (1995) The surgical and medical perioperative complications of anterior spinal fusion in the thoracic and lumbar spine in adults: A review of 1223 procedures. Spine 20:1592–9.
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00007632-199507150-00007&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7570174&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1995RK23300007&link_type=ISI) 

30. Jutte PC, Castelein RM (2002) Complications of pedicle screws in lumbar and lumbosacral fusion in 105 consecutive primary operations. Eur Spine J 11:594–8.
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00586-002-0469-8&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12522719&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000180032400014&link_type=ISI) 

31. Epstein NE (1998) Decompression in the surgical management of degenerative spondylolisthesis: advantages of a conservative approach in 290 patients. J Spinal Disorders 11:116–22.
    
    [PubMed](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9588467&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F5%2F4%2F125.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](https://www.ijssurgery.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000073244900004&link_type=ISI)