TY - JOUR T1 - An attempt at clinically defining and assessing minimally invasive surgery compared with traditional “open” spinal surgery JF - International Journal of Spine Surgery JO - Int J Spine Surg SP - 125 LP - 130 DO - 10.1016/j.esas.2011.06.002 VL - 5 IS - 4 AU - Paul C. McAfee AU - Steven R. Garfin AU - W. Blake Rodgers AU - R. Todd Allen AU - Frank Phillips AU - Choll Kim Y1 - 2011/01/01 UR - http://ijssurgery.com//content/5/4/125.abstract N2 - 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. ER -