Talk:Minimally invasive spine surgery
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Page move
[edit]This page needs to be moved to Minimally invasive spine surgery. Am going to request an admin move it. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The following is WP:OR. This chronology and highlights are based on some editor's opinion, which may be entirely correct but is not a valid basis for Wikipedia content. This needs to be source to one or more secondary sources th at point out that a) these innovations were important, b) these people did theml; and c) the primary source cited is actually the relevant one.
Some of the first advancements in minimally invasive spine surgery came from attempts to improve visualization for physicians during operations. In 1931, Dr. M.S. Burman first introduced the idea of myeloscopy which allowed for direct spinal cord visualization by drilling a small hole in the base of the sacrum.[1] Several years later, in 1938, Dr. J.L. Pool expanded on this idea and first introduced the concept of intrathecal endoscopy, which involves inserting the endoscope directly into the spinal canal.[2] While groundbreaking, this procedure became increasingly unpopular due to morbidity associated with inserting a large-bore scope into sensitive dural cavity.[3] Eventually, in 1973, Dr. Satoh Ooi used an endoscope to to examine the intrathecal space before the operation and was able to see pathological features in greater detail.[4]
Another milestone in minimally invasive spine surgery came in 1941 when Eugene Janson and Arnold Balls discovered chymopapain in an attempt to relieve the pain caused by herniated discs.[5] They found that certain properties from the Carica papaya fruit could cause depolymerization of the proteoglycan and glycoprotein macromolecules in the nucleus pulposus.[6] Dr. Smith adapted these laboratory discoveries into a clinical setting and performed the first chemonucleolysis procedures on humans in 1969, which is considered to be the first minimally invasive spine surgery.[6][7] This procedure involved injecting chemical chymopapain in the annulus fibrosus, or the tough outer layer of a disc, and removing the herniated disc through enzymatic hydrolysis. However, despite FDA approval, enthusiasm for the procedure dwindled after several reports of complications, including arachnoiditis, were published.[8][9][10]
Tubular access to the spine was first introduced in 1991 by Drs. Faubert and Caspart, which effectively paved the way for further development of tubular retractors and other smaller instruments.[11]
References
- ^ M. S. Burman, "Myeloscopy or the direct visualization of the spinal cord and its contents," The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 695-696, 1931.
- ^ J. L. Pool, "Myeloscopy: intraspinal endoscopy," Surgery , vol. 11, pp. 169-182, 1942.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
:2was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Y. Ooi, Y. Satoh, N. Morisaki, "Myeloscopy, possibility of observing lumbar intrathecal space by use of an endoscope," Endoscopy , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 90-96, 1973.
- ^ Chymopapain: a new crystalline proteinase from papaya latex. J Biol Chem 137:459–460, 1941. (Letter)
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
:1was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Chemonucleolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 67:72–80, 1969
- ^ Epidural adhesions after chymopapain chemonucleolysis. J R Coll Surg Edinb 34:30–32, 1989
- ^ The response of nerve tissue to chymopapain. Int Orthop 14:79–83, 1990
- ^ Inadequacies and hazards of chymopapain injections as treatment for intervertebral disease. J Neurosurg 42:389–396, 1975
- ^ Faubert, C.; Caspar, W. (1991-01-01). "Lumbar percutaneous discectomy. Initial experience in 28 cases". Neuroradiology. 33 (5): 407–410. ISSN 0028-3940. PMID 1749470.
-- Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Some proposed changes
[edit] | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
I want to propose an edits to the History section of this page with the following:
Within the past ten years, there have been disputes among experts about what minimally invasive means to all professionals what occurs during a minimally invasive procedure. Recently, some medical professionals have come to question the phrase "minimally invasive," and describe it to have become a "trite phrase" of medical terminology.
Here is the citation for the source to back up this statement and terminology:
"Intervertebral Disk Arthoplasty of the Lumar Spine". 491-496. Decision making in spinal care. Anderson, D. Greg., Vaccaro, Alexnder R. (2nd ed.). New York: Thieme. 2013. ISBN 9781604064186. OCLC 827468120.
Torybear14 (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I looked at the chapter provided in the citation, and the content is not supported by it.
- That odd and exact phrase about the term "minimally invasive" being "trite" does occur in Ditsworth's chapter in the 2007 edition of that book, linked at Ditsworth's clinic website here, which says: "Historically, open surgery techniques have been used to treat diskogenic pain, and more recently minimally invasive techniques have been developed. However, "minimally invasive" has become a trite phrase that has lost its meaning and is used by different authors to describe totally different things. In the spine field, it is time to replace this language with a less ambiguous perspective..." but oddly it doesn't appear in the same chapter of the 2013 edition of that book, which says: "Historically, surgical solutions were initially open, traumatic approaches that were associated with significant morbidity. Driven in part by the desire of patients and physicians to reduce the morbidity of spinal procedures, less-invasive approaches have grown significantly in popularity in recent years. There is a growing need for clearer language that can differentiate between the various “minimally invasive” procedures."
- Please give accurate citations when you post.
- And seeing how odd the claim is, and how even Ditsworth no longer makes it, I don't see why WP should say this. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)