| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Editorial Office |  
J Minim Invasive Spine Surg Tech > Volume 10(1); 2025 > Article
Kulkarni, Ponnam, Wadi, Shah, Jayabalan, and Jain: Tubular Hybrid Surgery: A Varying Paradigm

Abstract

In general, the scientific literature recommends extended fusion of the lumbar decompressed level adjacent to a fused level. Tubular decompression of lumbar canal stenosis defies this concept as it minimizes collateral damage. This study explores the concept of tubular hybrid surgery, where tubular decompression is performed adjacent to a fused level. A descriptive study of the technique is presented with a few case examples. The concept of tubular hybrid surgery wherein tubular minimally invasive spinal fusion is performed at one level and microscopic tubular decompression is executed at the adjacent levels is discussed, along with clinical and biomechanical evidence and case examples. The tubular hybrid method represents a significant advancement in minimally invasive spine surgery. Larger long-term, multicentric, prospective studies are necessary to establish the benefits of the procedure.

INTRODUCTION

There is a fear of instability following decompression adjacent to a fused segment. The need to stabilize consequent levels, including the decompressed stable level adjacent to an instrumented unstable level stems from the treasure of existent literature [1-4]. There is a significant body of evidence condemning stand-alone decompression adjacent to a level that is simultaneously undergoing fusion [5,6]. The authors challenge this understanding in the wake of the opportunities provided by tubular retractor-based minimally invasive approach. Unlike in a conventional laminectomy procedure, the posterior ligamentous complex (PLC) is not sacrificed while performing a tube- assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or tubular decompression. Integrity of PLC is extremely critical in maintaining spinal stability, especially in the context of adjacent segment disease of proximal junctional kyphosis. The authors venture to exploit the PLC-saving property of tubular approach and justify the concept of hybrid minimally invasive surgery (MIS; different MIS techniques at adjacent levels) using a few illustrations and biomechanical evidence.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Written informed consent was obtained from the respective patients for the publication purpose. These techniques involve MIS-TLIF using Medtronic matrix tubular retractors for decompression, interbody fusion and percutaneous pedicle screws for stabilization at an unstable or deformed stenotic level and stand-alone tubular decompression using a paramedian approach incorporating an ‘over-the-top’ approach at the adjacent stable level. This enables surgeons to perform both spinal fusion and direct decompression of the spinal nerves, while preserving the stability that is needed to minimize the extension of fusion.

1. Case Illustration 1

A 65-year-old male presents with mechanical lower back pain, more pronounced pain in the right lower limb compared to the left, and symptoms of claudication (Figure 1).

2. Case Illustration 2

A 60-year-old active male, known for his enthusiasm for exercise and with a medical history of diabetes mellitus and hypertension, has been experiencing lower back pain and bilateral buttock pain for the past 6 months, radiating to the posterior thigh and calf. The pain is continuous, particularly aggravated by standing, walking, and sitting, and is accompanied by severe claudication (Figure 2). On examination, there are no tension signs, but bilateral extensor hallucis longus muscle strength is slightly reduced at 4/5.

3. Case Illustration 3

A 70-year-old male with a known history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hypothyroidism presents with bilateral lower limb pain that has worsened over the past 3 months, along with pain in the right buttock and anterior thigh, and symptoms of claudication; on examination, bilateral straight leg raise is free, and there is no evidence of neurological deficits (Figure 3).

DISCUSSION

The authors would like to discuss the cases represented in the background of the dictum of simultaneously fusing the decompressed level adjacent to a fused level to avoid potential instability in the future [7-10]. In the case illustration 1 (Figure 1), an unstable L4–5 degenerative spondylolisthesis with stenosis (that qualifies for decompression and instrumented fusion) adjacent to which there is stable stenosis at L5–S1. Conventional teaching would suggest inclusion of L5–S1 in the fusion construct to minimize the risk of adjacent level stress rendering L5–S1 unstable later in life. The other option is to perform a calculated decompression at L5–S1 keeping the posterior tension band inclusive of interspinous and supraspinous between L5 and S1 intact. Striking a balance in such situation between adequate decompression and maintaining stability is a challenge and needs skill. A compromise between the two is a possibility and this was a point of discussion in a scientific article published previously [11]. The tubular minimal access approach probably answers this dilemma (Figure 4). The tubular approach provides an option of sliding both the ways of fusion as well as decompression unlike an open surgery where the decompression would involve a significant violation of the PLC in a rather stable level, the tubular approach solves this dilemma of decompression without the need for instrumentation (Figure 5). Similarly in the case scenarios 2 (Figure 2) and 3 (Figure 3), 3-consecutive-level stenosis was addressed with instrumentation at an unstable level followed by decompression of the adjacent 2 levels through unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (Figure 6). In either of these case scenarios, the segments which have reached a state of auto-stabilization, there was only a need to address the stenosis (Figure 7). On the contrary a conventional midline approach for the same would have demanded probably fusion at all the levels. The hybrid approach revolves around the integrity of posterior ligament complex (PLC) that coincidently is untouched and preserved in tubular approaches.
PLC comprising of supraspinous ligament, interspinous ligament, ligamentum flavum, and facet joint capsules play a pivotal role in the overall stability and the integrity of a spinal segment. PLC integrity has been the centrepiece of discussions in reducing the development of the adjacent segment degeneration since it plays a primary role in maintaining the structural stability of the spine by preventing excessive flexion, rotation, and translation between vertebral segments. Due to this, PLC is a critical component in assessing the severity and stability of thoracolumbar spinal injuries and is a part of the thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score, where it has been assigned the maximum scoring in the scale, that is 3 [12]. A biomechanical study by Panjabi et al. [13] described the functional spinal unit to be the least stable in a scenario where all the posterior supporting ligaments were sacrificed with a flexion load. Gillespie and Dickey [14] adopted sequential removal of constituents of the PLC from outside to inside. They found that the supraspinous ligament-interspinous ligament complex contributed 35.9% to resistance of the peak flexion moment.
Unlike open surgeries where conventional laminectomy is performed in the process of decompression, tubular surgeries are known to preserve PLC in view of its adoption of “over-the-top” technique.
The philosophy of hybrid MIS finds resonance in basic biomechanical studies also. In one-of-a-kind load bearing flexibility study done on cadaveric models by Grunert et al. [11], different types of spine surgeries like single level MIS instrumentation with consecutive level minimally invasive (MI) laminotomy over-the-top decompression, MI decompression with bilateral partial facetectomy, open laminectomy with bilateral partial facetectomy and their effect on the spinal biomechanics were imitated. Instrumentation significantly decreased mobility at the fused level by 90% during flexion-extension, 69% during axial rotation, and 82% during lateral bending. In the consecutive level where MI over-the-top decompression was performed using laminotomy, there was an increase in the segmental range of movement (ROM) during flexion-extension by 20% and 26% during axial rotation from the baseline. In the scenario where the consecutive level underwent MI decompression with bilateral facetectomy, the axial rotation increased by 41% from the baseline while flexion-extension and lateral bending was not significant. In the fourth scenario where the consecutive level underwent laminectomy with bilateral facetectomy, the instability peaked with an increase in the flexion-extension by 38% and axial rotation by 58% from the baseline. They reported minimally invasive over-the-top decompression through laminotomy is biomechanically superior to open laminectomy and may allow decompression of the level adjacent the fused segment without any additional extension of the fusion. Their data shows that laminectomy leads to a drastic increase in segmental ROM (up to 53% from baseline) adjacent to instrumented segments, which is significantly more than minimally invasive decompression (up to 26%).
Again, multilevel spinal stenosis with or without instability or deformity is an off shoot of degenerative cascade and there is a fear of instability adjacent to the fused segment following decompression in conventional open techniques [15,16]. Open techniques often follow an extensive stabilization plan that works like one size that fits all. On the contrast, there are various MIS options available for treating spinal conditions, each tailored to address specific pathologies and patient needs. Since it is not uncommon to face patients of different age groups with different clinical situations demanding variable treatment plans. These options include alternating treatment plans of fusion at one level and stand-alone decompression/ discectomy at the adjacent level, the concept of the entire plan going against the dictum of fusing the adjacent level next to a fused level [10,17]. By combining these techniques, hybrid tubular MIS allows for a customized treatment plan that can effectively manage pain, maintain spinal function, and reduce the risk of complications associated with more invasive surgeries. The rationale behind these varied MIS techniques is grounded in the Kirkaldy-Willis and Burton’s theory of the degenerative cascade [18]. This theory narrates the natural history of a spinal segment due to aging and degeneration which goes from degeneration to instability to stability. It is not necessary that all the lumbar levels run through these changes simultaneously. In many cases of multilevel stenosis, the involved levels are usually in various phases of this cascade and will be requiring a custom approach while operating.

CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS

1. Technical Complexity

Hybrid tubular MIS requires a high level of technical skill and experience. Variability in outcomes can be influenced by the surgeon’s proficiency with the technique and the specific technologies used.

2. Long-term Data

While hybrid tubular MIS offers several immediate benefits, a more robust body of long-term research is necessary to confirm the durability of these outcomes and ensure that the procedure remains a viable and effective option for spinal surgery in the future. This ongoing research will help refine surgical techniques, improve patient selection criteria, and ultimately enhance patient care and outcomes in spinal surgery.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid tubular surgery is a new paradigm in the wake of evolving spine surgeries. These techniques have a place in the spinal science since the benefits seem attractive in terms of maintaining motion, minimizing morbidity and reducing the overall expenditure while achieving the needed objectives. While the technique shows promise, the authors emphasize the need for further clinical research, especially muticentric-based to validate the long-term benefits of hybrid MIS.

NOTES

Conflicts of interest

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding/Support

This study received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Figure 1.
Radiography suggestive of L4–5 unstable spondylolisthesis with stenosis (A–C) with L5–S1 stenosis (D).
jmisst-2025-02054f1.jpg
Figure 2.
Stenosis with listhesis at L4–5 (A), stenosis at L3–4 (B), and L2–3 (C).
jmisst-2025-02054f2.jpg
Figure 3.
Stenosis at L3–4 (A), L4–5 (B), and L5–S1 (C).
jmisst-2025-02054f3.jpg
Figure 4.
L4–5 minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; L5–S1 tubular decompression.
jmisst-2025-02054f4.jpg
Figure 5.
Follow-up x-ray at 6 months.
jmisst-2025-02054f5.jpg
Figure 6.
L4–5 minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion followed by decompression at L3–4 (A, B) and L2–3 (C, D). (E) Strategically placed incisions for the approach.
jmisst-2025-02054f6.jpg
Figure 7.
Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L3–4 (C, D) followed by tubular decompression at L4–5 (A) and L5–S1 (B).
jmisst-2025-02054f7.jpg

REFERENCES

1. Hopp E, Tsou PM. Post decompression lumbar instability. Clin Orthop 1988;227:143–51.
crossref pmid
2. Johnsson KE, Willner S, Johnsson K. Postoperative instability after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1986;11:107–10.
crossref pmid
3. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Larson MG. The outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:809–16.
crossref pmid
4. Lu WW, Luk KD, Ruan DK, Fei ZQ, Leong JC. Stability of the whole lumbar spine after multilevel fenestration and discectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999;24:1277–82.
crossref pmid
5. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Hanscom B, Tosteson AN, Blood EA, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 2007;356:2257–70.
crossref pmid pmc
6. Herkowitz HN, Kurz L. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:802–8.
crossref pmid
7. Strube P, Tohtz S, Hoff E, Gross C, Perka C, Putzier M. Dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion: part I. Biomechanical effects on lumbar spinal motion. Eur Spine J 2010;19:2171–80.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
8. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, Jeong ST, Kim JG, Hodges SD, et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:2431–4.
crossref pmid
9. Aiki H, Ohwada O, Kobayashi H, Hayakawa M, Kawaguchi S, Takebayashi T, et al. Adjacent segment stenosis after lumbar fusion requiring second operation. J Orthop Sci 2005;10:490–5.
crossref pmid
10. Cardoso MJ, Dmitriev AE, Helgeson M, Lehman RA, Kuklo TR, Rosner MK. Does superior-segment facet violation or laminectomy destabilize the adjacent level in lumbar transpedicular fixation? An in vitro human cadaveric assessment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:2868–73.
crossref pmid
11. Grunert P, Reyes PM, Newcomb AG, Towne SB, Kelly BP, Theodore N, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar decompression adjacent to instrumented segments. Neurosurgery 2016;79:895–904.
crossref pmid pdf
12. Lee JY, Vaccaro AR, Lim MR, Oner FC, Hulbert RJ, Hedlund R, et al. Thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score: a new paradigm for the treatment of thoracolumbar spine trauma. J Orthop Sci 2005;10:671–5.
crossref pmid pmc
13. Panjabi MM, Hausfeld JN, White AA. A biomechanical study of the ligamentous stability of the thoracic spine in man. Acta Orthop Scand 1981;52:315–26.
crossref pmid
14. Gillespie KA, Dickey JP. Biomechanical role of lumbar spine ligaments in flexion and extension: determination using a parallel linkage robot and a porcine model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:1208–16.
crossref pmid
15. Mimura T, Tsutsumimoto T, Yui M, Takahashi J, Kuraishi S, Misawa H. Adjacent segment pathology following posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: a comparison between minimally invasive and conventional open approach. Spine J 2021;21:1297–302.
crossref pmid
16. Ramanathan S, Rapp A, Perez-Cruet M, Fahim DK. Long-term reoperation rates after open versus minimally invasive spine surgery for degenerative lumbar disease: five year follow-up of 2130 patients. World Neurosurg 2023;171:e126–36.
crossref pmid
17. Hopp E, Tsou PM. Post decompression lumbar instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988;227:143–51.
crossref pmid
18. Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Farfan HF. Instability of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1982;(165):110–23.
crossref
TOOLS
PDF Links  PDF Links
PubReader  PubReader
ePub Link  ePub Link
XML Download  XML Download
Full text via DOI  Full text via DOI
Download Citation  Download Citation
  Print
Share:      
METRICS
0
Crossref
0
Scopus
255
View
5
Download
Related article
About |  Browse Articles |  Editorial Policy |  For Contributors
Editorial Office
Department of Neurosurgery, Harrison Spinartus Hospital Chungdam
646 Samseong-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06084, Korea
TEL: +82-2-6003-9767    FAX: +82-2-3445-9755   E-mail: office@jmisst.org
Publisher
Korean Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Society
350 Seocho-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06631, Korea
TEL: +82-2-585-5455    FAX: +82-2-523-6812   E-mail: komisskomiss@gmail.com
Copyright © Korean Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Society.                 Developed in M2PI