4.5 Article

Comparison of Patient Preference, Understanding, and Sentiment for Minimally Invasive Versus Open Spine Surgery

Journal

SPINE
Volume 47, Issue 4, Pages 309-316

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004134

Keywords

microdiscectomy; minimally invasive; open surgery; operative confidence; patient perceptions; spine; surgeon choice; transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to analyze patients' understanding and preferences for minimally invasive spine (MIS) versus open spine surgery through a retrospective questionnaire analysis. The results showed that patients who received a MIS approach were more likely to seek out their surgeons, had more confidence in their procedure, and reported fewer perceived disadvantages following their surgery compared to the open surgery group. Both groups of patients expressed a preference for MIS surgery in the future.
Study Design. Retrospective questionnaire analysis. Objective. The goal of this study was to analyze patients' understanding and preferences for minimally invasive spine (MIS) versus open spine surgery. Summary of Background Data. MIS surgery is increasing in prevalence. However, there is insufficient literature to evaluate how the availability of MIS surgery influences the patients' decision-making process and perceptions of spine procedures. Methods. A survey was administered to patients who received a microdiscectomy or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion between 2016 and 2020. All eligible patients were stratified into two cohorts based on the use of minimally invasive techniques. Each cohort was administered a survey that evaluated patient preferences, perceptions, and understanding of their surgery. Results. One hundred fifty two patients completed surveys (MIS: 88, Open: 64). There was no difference in time from surgery to survey (MIS: 2.1 +/- 1.4 yrs, Open: 1.9 +/- 1.4 yrs; P = 0.36) or sex (MIS: 56.8% male, Open: 53.1% male; P = 0.65). The MIS group was younger (MIS: 53.0 +/- 16.9 yrs, Open: 58.2 +/- 14.6 yrs; P = 0.05). More MIS patients reported that their technique influenced their surgeon choice (MIS: 64.0%, Open: 37.5%; P < 0.00001) and increased their preoperative confidence (MIS: 77.9%, Open: 38.1%; P < 0.00001). There was a trend towards the MIS group being less informed about the intraoperative specifics of their technique (MIS: 35.2%, Open: 23.4%; P = 0.12). More of the MIS cohort reported perceived advantages to their surgical technique (MIS: 98.8%, Open: 69.4%; P < 0.00001) and less reported disadvantages (MIS: 12.9%, Open: 68.8%; P < 0.00001). 98.9% and 87.1% of the MIS and open surgery cohorts reported a preference for MIS surgery in the future. Conclusion. Patients who received a MIS approach more frequently sought out their surgeons, were more confident in their procedure, and reported less perceived disadvantages following their surgery compared with the open surgery cohort. Both cohorts would prefer MIS surgery in the future. Overall, patients have positive perceptions of MIS surgery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available