Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleMinimally Invasive Surgery

Segmental Interbody, Muscle-Preserving, Ligamentotaxis-Enabled Reduction: “SIMPLER” Technique for cMIS Correction of ASD

Jerry Robinson, David Gendelberg, Andrew Chung, Jose H. Jimenez-Almonte, Babak Khandehroo and Neel Anand
International Journal of Spine Surgery February 2025, 19 (S1) S37-S54; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8714
Jerry Robinson
1 University of Pittsburg Medical Center (UPMC) Harrisburg, Harrisburg, PA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: jerryrobinsoniii@gmail.com
David Gendelberg
2 Department of Orthopedics, University of California, San Francisco Orthopedics Trauma Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Chung
3 Department of Orthopedics, Banner Health, Phoenix, AZ, USA
DO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jose H. Jimenez-Almonte
4 Department of Orthopedics, Central Florida Bone and Joint Institute, Orange City, FL, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Babak Khandehroo
5 Department of Orthopedics, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Neel Anand
5 Department of Orthopedics, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Bone health optimization protocol: graphical representation of the treatment algorithm. Treatments are based on nonspine dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry T-scores. Any patient meeting World Health Organization criteria for osteopenia or osteoporosis is referred to endocrinology for bone mineral density optimization. T-scores > −2 do not require preoperative treatment with anabolic agents; however, if there are any intraoperative concerns for poor bone quality (fracture, screw pullout/plowing, poor screw purchase, and poor bony tactile feedback), they are started on anabolic therapy postoperatively. T-scores ranging from −2 to −3 are arranged to begin anabolic treatments, but this does not have to be started prior to surgery. It can be initiated in the postoperative period, avoiding delays in surgical intervention. T-scores 3 to −3.5 have their operation postponed until completing endocrine evaluation and demonstrating anabolic medication compliance for at least 2 weeks. Anyone started on anabolic treatment continues therapy for at least 1 year postoperatively. If T-scores are less than −3.5, surgery is postponed, and the patient is treated medically until demonstrable improvements are observed.

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    “Midline muscle sparing” approach. (a) Standard midline skin incision. (b) Elevation of lipocutaneous flaps, staying superficial to muscular fascial layers. (c) Completed midline muscle-sparing approach with bilateral lipocutaneous flap elevation to the Wiltse paraspinal interval.

  • Figure 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3

    Robotic pin placement. (a) Palpating the posterior superior iliac spine through the midline muscle sparing incision allows for safe pin placement and prevents errant sacral placement. (b) Completed pin placement through stab incision. This reference pin is the site for robotic arm attachment.

  • Figure 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4

    Computed tomography (CT) to fluoroscopic registration. (a) Anteroposterior fluoroscopic registration with robotic arm reference markers. (b) Fluoroscopic image obtained from anteroposterior. (c) Lateral/oblique fluoroscopic registration with robotic arm reference markers. (d) Fluoroscopic image obtained at lateral/oblique. The spinal cortical densities in combination with the navigation markers are matched to a corresponding preoperative CT image. This is the basis for navigation registration.

  • Figure 5
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5

    “Trust-but-verify” robotic instrumentation safety protocol. (a) Long-handled scalpel blade is introduced to create a fascial opening for working channel insertion. (b) Working channel insertion is introduced down to bone, dilating through the muscle to provide a channel for tool passage. (c) The high-speed burr is introduced to open the initial pedicle screw trajectory. (d) A pedicle tap 1 mm less than the pedicle screw diameter is introduced to the pedicle channel. (e) A long ball-tipped probe is introduced to “feel” the walls of the pedicle for breaches. (f) A Kirschner wire (K-wire) introduction sleeve (“straw”) is placed. (g) K-wire is placed through the “straw” and gently impacted into bone to prevent dislodgement from the prepared pedicle channel. (h) Perifascial incision can be packed with gauze to limit bleeding upon removal of working channel. (i) K-wires are managed superficially and later inspected with fluoroscopy for safe trajectory. If there is ever concern for pedicle breach, a ball-tipped probe can be inserted at any step to inspect the pedicle walls.

  • Figure 6
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6

    Placement of pelvic instrumentation. A small fascial opening is made medial to the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS). A small cuff of fascia tissue is left attached to the PSIS for lateral repair. The screw head is left prominent and visible above the fascia. Later, a screw extender tower can be attached before the screw is driven below the fascia. Inset radiograph demonstrates the “subcrestal” iliac screw trajectories that allow the screw head to eventually be driven below the fascia.

  • Figure 7
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7

    Passing the rod. (a) With instrumentation completed, an overcontoured rod is harmoniously bent, ensuring there are no sharp angular bends that notch the rod. (b) The rod is slid under the fascia into all the screw extenders. The midline muscle-sparing incision makes this aspect of minimally invasive surgery much easier than percutaneous techniques.

  • Figure 8
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 8

    Reduction to the apex of lordosis. Starting at the apex of lordosis, a rod reducer is inserted into the screw extender. This reduction tower has numerical readouts that are displayed in a window on the side of the extender. These numeric values correspond to the distance needed for complete rod reduction into the screw head. Once the rod reduction tower is inserted into the extender, it is advanced until resistance is encountered. The display window should read 8 mm or less. If a greater value is observed, remove the rod and bend more lordosis into the rod.

  • Figure 9
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 9

    Serial rod reduction to the apex of lordosis. This diagram demonstrates equal force distribution across multiple screw reduction towers. The goal is for reduction to the apex of lordosis first. With an initial display of 8 mm at the apex of lordosis, adjacent towers will likely read slightly higher in an appropriately overcontoured rod. By reducing the adjacent screw towers, this will lessen the forces on the rod at the apex of lordosis. Once the adjacent screw towers are reduced to 8 mm, the surgeon can reduce the apex to 4 mm. Switching back to the adjacent towers, the surgeon reduces L3 and L5 down to 4 mm. The apex should now easily reduce (RD). Once the apex of lordosis is reduced, the adjacent towers can be reduced as well. Reduction of the adjacent levels after the apex will hopefully impart a force onto the spine and create lordosis.

  • Figure 10
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 10

    Incorrect rod reduction sequence. The above-noted diagram demonstrates the improper technique for the reduction of the rod. When the adjacent screw towers around the apex of lordosis are fully reduced (RD) before the apex, this creates a scenario that will only result in screw pullout. The 5.5 mm titanium alloy rod has some flexibility but will not accommodate an acute deformation into the screw head with the adjacent levels fully reduced. Surgeons should take care to reduce to the apex of lordosis first.

  • Figure 11
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 11

    Serial rod reduction toward the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV). Reducing the rod toward the UIV will eventually force the rod into the screw heads with very little effort. In an appropriately overcontoured rod, rod reducers inserted near the UIV should require almost no reduction.

  • Figure 12
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 12

    Rod reduction into the pelvic screw head: With a modified iliac screw trajectory, polyaxial screw head can still rotate to accommodate variation in rod position. (a) Pictured is the iliac fixation driven under the fascia with an attached screw extender. The rod has not yet been fully reduced. The rod was aggressively overcontoured to ensure that the apex of lordosis is within 8 mm, but this results in a prominent rod tip. Further reduction will eventually drive this rod below the fascial level (b) With serial reduction around the apex of lordosis, the iliac screw tower is visualized by itself with an intact midline supraspinous ligament. (c) With the reduction of adjacent screws and eventually the iliac screw, the rod disappears under the fascia to prevent prominence and ensure that a full fascia closure is achievable. The dotted lines represent cuffs to fascia tissue that can be closed later.

  • Figure 13
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 13

    Spinal translation during rod reduction. With the rod held in fixed coronal position, the dedicated rod reduction towers can impart significant forces on the residual spinal deformity. Additionally, distributing the forces across multiple adjacent screw towers helps prevent screw pullout during this process.

  • Figure 14
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 14

    Spinal derotation during rod reduction. Throughout the reduction process, forces are being applied in multiple planes. Derotation can occur with pressure applied to the reduction towers. It should be noted that linked segmental derotation is not performed in this technique.

  • Figure 15
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 15

    Fusion technique: the segments of spinal instrumentation that do not contain anterior interbody fusion grafts must still undergo a formal fusion procedure. (a) With spinal instrumentation and rod reduction fully completed, the areas in yellow boxes require a formal posterior fusion. The fascial openings from the spinal instrumentation are connected. (b) The paraspinal interval is dissected to expose the pars interarticularis, facet joints, and the lateral laminae of the levels to be fused. (c) The fusion bed containing decorticated bone surfaces medial to the instrumentation, packed with bone-morphogenic protein 2 and allograft. Note that the midline is intact without detachment of muscular origins or insertions. Radiographic insert demonstrates a healed fusion with this type of technique. Note the flowing bone along the pars-facet-pars complex.

  • Figure 16
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 16

    Closure of midline muscle sparing approach. (a) Running barbed sutures are performed bilaterally to completely close the fascial openings. (b) Bilateral fascia has been closed in a watertight fashion. Note that the midline has not been violated. There is no need for a deep drain. (c) The lipocutaneous flaps are reattached to the midline with a suturing technique that contains bilateral deep dermal layers and the midline ligamentous complex of the spine. The suture is thrown superficial-to-deep in the deep dermal layer, then through the ligamentous midline spine, and then deep-to-superficial through the contralateral deep dermal layer. The outlined circles demonstrate the appropriate layers for this stitch. This is repeated until the lipocutaneous flaps are completely reattached, and dead-space has been eliminated. Suprafascial drains are not necessary.

  • Figure 17
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 17

    Case example using Segmental Interbody, Muscle-Preserving, Ligamentotaxis-Enabled Reduction protocol: preoperative radiographs of a 62-year-old man with adult spinal deformity. Spinopelvic parameters include 53° coronal Cobb angle for the thoracolumbar structural curve (L1−L4), pelvic incidence of 42°, lumbar lordosis of 4°, mismatch of 38°, pelvic tilt of 31°, and C7 SVA of 11.5 cm. Computed tomography images also demonstrate severe facet and intradiscal spondylosis without ankylosis. The spinal magnetic resonance imaging demonstrates significant rotational deformity but also shows the various anterior interbody corridors (white arrows) based on the patient’s vascular anatomy.

  • Figure 18
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 18

    Postoperative case example using Segmental Interbody, Muscle-Preserving, Ligamentotaxis-Enabled Reduction: Planned T12-pelvic resulted in significant correction without the use of an osteotomy. Coronal Cobb angle reduced to 22°, lumbar lordosis increased to 45° (mismatch of +3°), pelvic tilt reduced to 14°, and C7 SVA reduced to 1.5 cm. Note the improved thoracic kyphosis within the uninstrumented thoracic spine. This represents a reciprocal compensatory change due to improved lumbar alignment.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery: 19 (S1)
International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 19, Issue S1
1 Feb 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Segmental Interbody, Muscle-Preserving, Ligamentotaxis-Enabled Reduction: “SIMPLER” Technique for cMIS Correction of ASD
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Segmental Interbody, Muscle-Preserving, Ligamentotaxis-Enabled Reduction: “SIMPLER” Technique for cMIS Correction of ASD
Jerry Robinson, David Gendelberg, Andrew Chung, Jose H. Jimenez-Almonte, Babak Khandehroo, Neel Anand
International Journal of Spine Surgery Feb 2025, 19 (S1) S37-S54; DOI: 10.14444/8714

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Segmental Interbody, Muscle-Preserving, Ligamentotaxis-Enabled Reduction: “SIMPLER” Technique for cMIS Correction of ASD
Jerry Robinson, David Gendelberg, Andrew Chung, Jose H. Jimenez-Almonte, Babak Khandehroo, Neel Anand
International Journal of Spine Surgery Feb 2025, 19 (S1) S37-S54; DOI: 10.14444/8714
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results: Technical Description
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Comparative Review of Lateral and Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique, Outcomes, and Complications
  • Key Considerations in Surgical Decision-Making on the Side of Approach for Lumbar Lateral Transpsoas Interbody Fusion Techniques
  • A Spine Surgeon’s Learning Curve With the Minimally Invasive L5 to S1 Lateral ALIF Surgical Approach: Perioperative Outcomes and Technical Considerations
Show more Minimally Invasive Surgery

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • circumferential minimally invasive surgery
  • technique
  • adult spinal deformity
  • osteotomy
  • imaging
  • computer-generated imagery

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire