Spine surgery evolved
NuVasive provides less invasive procedural solutions that enable shorter hospital stays and improved clinical benefits1-10—ultimately getting you back on your feet sooner. As the leader in less invasive surgery, we are committed to providing your surgeon with industry-leading procedures and enabling technologies to transform surgery, advance care, and change lives.
While we know the decision to receive spine surgery may be intimidating, we empower you to educate yourself on the benefits of less invasive surgery. The following procedures enable your surgeon to use advanced techniques and technologies while minimizing the incision size—which have often been shown to improve patient outcomes in relation to a traditional open procedure.1-10
This webpage provides general information on less invasive surgery. It is not meant to replace any personal conversations that you might wish to have with your physician or other member of your healthcare team. Not all the information here will apply to your individual treatment or its outcome.
Less blood loss1-7
Shorter length of stay1, 3-8
Less risk of perioperative morbidity 9-10
Shorter recovery time4
What is less invasive surgery?
Less blood loss1-7
Shorter length of stay1, 3-8
Less risk of perioperative morbidity 9-10
Shorter recovery time4
What is less invasive surgery?
XLIF
The eXtreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF) technique is a minimally disruptive surgical procedure performed through the side of the body. It is designed to treat a range of spinal pathologies. Using nerve monitoring technology, the surgeon gains lateral (side) access to the spinal column, in an effort to avoid any major nerves in the area between the incision and the column. The XLIF procedure does not require an anterior (front) or posterior (back) exposure, and thereby does not present the same risks of vascular and/or neural injury as traditional approaches.
- smaller incisions,
- less blood loss during surgery,1-7
- reduced operative time,
- reduced hospital stay,1, 3-4
- and reduced postoperative recovery time.9,10
- anesthesia,
- infection,
- nerve damage,
- the graft or hardware,
- and ongoing pain.
This is not intended to be a complete list of the possible complications. Please contact your physician to discuss all potential risks.
View the following patient education resources to learn what you can expect with an XLIF procedure.
MAS TLIF
Lumbar interbody fusion is a surgical technique that attempts to eliminate instability in the back. A MAS TLIF is designed to achieve this by using a less invasive approach to fuse one or more vertebrae together to reduce their motion. Rather than starting from the middle of the back and spreading the muscles to the sides as is done in traditional back surgery, the MAS TLIF approach starts off to one side of the spine and splits (rather than cuts) the back muscles in one direction. This allows the surgeon to make a smaller incision with less muscle injury, which may result in less postoperative pain and a quicker recovery.
- reduced blood loss,3-5
- shorter hospital stay,3-5
- and smaller incision.
Potential complications following MAS TLIF surgery include:
- problems with anesthesia,
- infection,
- nerve damage,
- problems with the graft or hardware,
- and ongoing pain.
This is not intended to be a complete list of the possible complications. Please contact your physician to discuss all potential risks.
View the following patient education resources to learn what you can expect with a MAS TLIF procedure.
MAS Midline
Lumbar interbody fusion is a surgical technique that attempts to eliminate instability in the back. A MAS Midline seeks to achieve this by using a less invasive approach to fuse one or more vertebrae together to reduce their motion. The distinct difference between a traditional “open” posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and a MAS Midline is the medialized surgical approach. The MAS Midline procedure is designed to eliminate the need to retract muscle laterally, therefore requiring a smaller incision than an “open” PLIF. By minimizing the amount of muscle disruption, this procedure is intended to reduce postoperative approach-related muscle pain and enable a faster recovery for the patient.
- reduced blood loss,3
- shorter hospital stay,3
- smaller incision,
- and less muscle disruption.
Potential complications following MAS Midline surgery include:
- problems with anesthesia,
- infection,
- nerve damage,
- problems with the graft or hardware,
- and ongoing pain.
This is not intended to be a complete list of the possible complications. Please contact your physician to discuss all potential risks.
View the following patient education resources to learn what you can expect with a MAS Midline procedure.
View the following patient education resources to learn what you can expect with a MAS Midline procedure.
Do you suffer from back pain?
If you are experiencing back pain and in need of a consultation, use the provided map to find a NuVasive surgeon near you!
Please note that NuVasive provides this listing as a service. We have no vested interest in any specific physicians, nor do we provide any recommendation, assurance, or guarantee with respect to their service.
1. Oliveira L, Marchi L, Coutinho E, et al. The use of rh-BMP2 in standalone eXtreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF®): clinical and radiological results after 24 months follow-up. World Spinal Column J 2010;1(1):19-25.
2. Dakwar E, Cardona RF, Smith DA, et al. Early outcomes and safety of the minimally invasive, lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach for adult degenerative scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus 2010;28(3):E8.
3. Goldstein CL, Phillips FM, Rampersaud YR. Comparative effectiveness and economic evaluations of open versus minimally invasive posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2016;41(8S)S74-89.2.
4. Sembrano, JN, Tohmeh A, Isaacs R, et al. Two-year Comparative Outcomes of MIS Lateral and MIS Transforaminal Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis. Spine 2016;41(8S):123-32.
5. Isaacs RE, Sembrano JN, Tomeh AG, et al. Two-Year Comparative Outcomes of MIS Lateral and MIS Transforaminal Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis. Spine 2016; 41(8S):133- 44
6. Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini–open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2008;9:560-5.
7. Whitecloud TS 3rd, Roesch WW, Ricciardi JE. Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anteriorposterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine: a financial analysis. J Spinal Disord 2001 Apr;14(2):100–3.
8. Lucio JC, VanConia RB, DeLuzio KJ, et al. Economics of less invasive spinal surgery: an analysis of hospital cost differences between open and minimally invasive instrumented spinal fusion procedures during the perioperative period. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2012;5(5):65-74.
9. Ozgur BM, Agarwal V, Nail E, et al. Two-year clinical and radiographic success of minimally invasive lateral transpsoas approach for the treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions. SAS J 2010;4:41–6.
10. Park Y, Ha JW. Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine 2007;32(5):537-43