Minimally invasive spine surgery and traditional open spine surgery both achieve the same fundamental surgical goals - decompressing neural structures and stabilising the spine where indicated - but they differ significantly in how they access the surgical site and the impact that access has on recovery. As a neurosurgeon trained in minimally invasive spine techniques at Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, I use these approaches routinely at Gleneagles Fortis Hospital, Chennai. Traditional open surgery: A longer incision is made along the spine, and muscles are retracted away from the bone to expose the surgical area.
This provides excellent visualisation but involves significant muscle disruption, which contributes to post-operative pain and longer recovery Minimally invasive spine surgery: Tubular retractors, endoscopic access, and microincisions dilate rather than cut the muscles, reducing tissue damage. Fluoroscopy or navigation guides accurate instrument placement through smaller entry points Recovery: Minimally invasive patients typically go home in one to two days and return to light activity in two to four weeks.
Open surgery typically requires longer hospitalisation and rehabilitation Outcomes: In appropriate cases, minimally invasive techniques achieve comparable or superior surgical outcomes with less blood loss, lower infection rates, and reduced post-operative pain Not every spine condition is suitable for minimally invasive surgery. The choice depends on the diagnosis, the extent of the decompression or fusion required, and the patient's anatomy. I discuss the most appropriate approach for each individual case at Gleneagles Fortis Hospital, Perumbakkam, Chennai.
Written by Dr Nigel Peter Symss, MBBS, DNB (Neurosurgery), Fellowship Paediatric Neurosurgery (Jikei University, Japan), Fellowship Spinal, Functional Neurosurgery and Microneurosurgery (Flinders Medical Centre, Australia), HOD and Senior Consultant Neurosurgeon and Functional Neurosurgeon, Gleneagles Fortis Hospital, Perumbakkam, Chennai
