Object The development of minimally invasive surgical techniques is driven by the quest for better patient outcomes. There is some evidence for the use of minimally invasive surgery for degenerative lumbar spine stenosis (LSS), but there are currently no studies comparing outcomes with matched controls. The object of this study was to compare outcomes following minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) to a standard “open” laminectomy for LSS. Methods The authors conducted a prospective, 1:1 randomized trial comparing ULBD to open laminectomy for degenerative LSS. The study enrolled 79 patients between 2007 and 2009, and adequate data for analysis were available in 54 patients (27 in each arm of the study). Patient demographic characteristics and clinical characteristics were recorded and clinical outcomes were obtained using pre- and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for leg pain, patient satisfaction index scores, and postoperative 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) scores. Results Significant improvements were observed in ODI and VAS scores for both open and ULBD interventions (p < 0.001 for both groups using either score). In addition, the ULBD-treated patients had a significantly better mean improvement in the VAS scores (p = 0.013) but not the ODI scores (p = 0.055) compared with patients in the open-surgery group. ULBD-treated patients had a significantly shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (55.1 vs 100.8 hours, p = 0.0041) and time to mobilization (15.6 vs 33.3 hours, p < 0.001) and were more likely to not use opioids for postoperative pain (51.9% vs 15.4%, p = 0.046). Conclusions Based on short-term follow-up, microscopic ULBD is as effective as open decompression in improving function (ODI score), with the additional benefits of a significantly greater decrease in pain (VAS score), postoperative recovery time, time to mobilization, and opioid use.

The clinical outcome of lumbar spinal fusion is correlated with achievement of bony fusion. Improving interbody implant bone on-growth and in-growth may enhance fusion, limiting pseudoarthrosis, stress shielding, subsidence and implant failure. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium (Ti) are commonly selected for interbody spacer construction. Although these materials have desirable biocompatibility and mechanical properties, they require further modification to support osseointegration. Reports of extensive research on this topic are available in biomaterial-centric published reports; however, there are few clinical studies concerning surface modification of interbody spinal implants. The current article focuses on surface modifications aimed at fostering osseointegration from a clinician's point of view. Surface modification of Ti by creating rougher surfaces, modifying its surface topography (macro and nano), physical and chemical treatment and creating a porous material with high interconnectivity can improve its osseointegrative potential and bioactivity. Coating the surface with osteoconductive materials like hydroxyapatite (HA) can improve osseointegration. Because PEEK spacers are relatively inert, creating a composite by adding Ti or osteoconductive materials like HA can improve osseointegration. In addition, PEEK may be coated with Ti, effectively bio-activating the coating.

In summary, the present systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that MI-TLIF appears to be a safe and efficacious approach compared to O-TLIF. MI-TLIF is associated with lower blood loss and infection rates in patients, albeit at the risk of higher radiation exposure for the surgical team. The long-term relative merits require further validation in prospective, randomized studies.