The Impact of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery on Patient Recovery: Evaluating How Endoscopic Techniques, Smaller Incisions, and Advanced Imaging Are Reducing Recovery Time and Improving Surgical Outcomes for Spinal Disorders
1 Mobeen Ali, 2 Ali Raza 3 Hadi Raza, 4 Umar Khan, 5 Dr Muhammad Azeem Akhund, 6 Dr Kishore Kumar Khatri
1PIMS, Islamabad, 2PIMS, 3 Agha Khan Karachi. 4Mayo Hospital Lahore
5Associate Professor Department of Orthopeadics Surgery and Traumatology PUMHS W Nawabshah
6Assistant Professor Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology PUMHS Nawabshah
Vol 15-03
Submission: 10th January 2025, Acceptance: 6th August 2025, Publication: 18th October 2025
Abstract
Background: While the traditional open spinal surgery is a successful technique, the recovery process is, however, more complex, which includes long recovery time, higher postoperative pain, and higher complication rate due to large surgery areas and tissue trauma. So, minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has come out as a less invasive procedure than traditional procedures, through the use of endoscopic, minimal incisions and most especially, the use of imaging techniques.
Aim: The purpose of this work is to assess the value of MISS in enhancing patient recovery and return to their normal lives due to application of endoscopic techniques, smaller incisions and better visualization influenced the recovery time and incidence of complications and surgical accuracy.
Method: Data involving patients who had MISS were compared to a similar group of patients who had undergone traditional open spine surgery, via a retrospective cohort study. Protective measures embraced also incorporated data on recovery time, pain scores, complications and rates of hospitalization, and the overall satisfaction. The patients were grouped according to the type of surgery that was performed and quantitative data was described.
Results: As the outcome revealed, the MISS resulted in 50 percent of reduced recovery time, faster healing rates of the wound, lesser postoperative pain, and less hospitalization period. It is known that smaller incisions favoured less complications, for instance infections, as well as less scarring of the skin. Improved visualization enabled surgeons to achieve better accuracy in operations and reduced the number of operations needed to correct failed surgery. Thus, there are indications that patients who went through MISS procedures had better satisfaction results compared with those who participated in traditional surgeries.
Conclusion: By comparison, MISS has been proved to be less damaging to patients when compared to traditional spine surgery both in terms of recovery time and complications resulting from the procedure among others and therefore has higher levels of patient satisfaction. The use of endoscopes, lesser incisions and better visualization technologies makes MISS the possible standard treatment option for spinal pathology. These arguments thus imply the following major foci for future research: long-term follow-up results and incorporation of new technologies to enhance MISS.
Keywords: Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS), endoscopic techniques, smaller incisions, advanced imaging, recovery time, postoperative complications, spinal surgery.