Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is growing indications of minimally invasive spine surgery. The inherent attitude and institutive learning curve limit transition from standard open surgery to minimally invasive surgery demanding understanding of new instruments and correlative anatomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 80 patients operated for lumbar disc prolapse were included in the study (between January 2016 and March 2018). Fifty patients (Group A) operated by various minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) techniques for herniated disc disease were compared with randomly selected 30 patients (Group B) operated between the same time interval by standard open approach. Surgical outcome with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and patient satisfaction score was calculated in pre- and postoperative periods. RESULTS: Mean preoperative ODI score in Group A was 31.52 ± 7.5 standard deviation (SD) (range: 6"46; interquartile range [IQR]: 8; median: 32.11) and postoperative ODI score was 9.20 ± 87.8 SD (range: 0"38; IQR: 11; median: 6.67). Mean preoperative ODI score in Group B was 26.47 ± 4.9 SD (range: 18"38; IQR: 4; median: 25) and postoperative ODI score was 12.27 ± 8.4 SD (range: 3"34; IQR: 12; median: 10.0). None of the patients was unsatisfied in either group. On comparing the patient satisfaction score among two groups, no significant difference (P = 0.27) was found. DISCUSSION: On comparing the change in ODI and preoperative ODI among both groups, we found a significant difference between the groups. It is worth shifting from open to MISS accepting small learning curve. The satisfaction score of MISS in early transition period is similar to open procedure. CONCLUSION: The MISS is safe and effective procedure even in transition period for the central and paracentral prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc treatment. The results are comparable, and patient satisfaction and symptomatic relief are not compromised.