Minimally invasive spine surgery represents the latest development in spine surgery and is sought after by the majority of patients. However, minimally invasive spine technology is still a young and developing technology, and due to the different positions, there are two tendencies, one is overly sought after and exaggerated efficacy, and the other is overly skeptical, even to the point of disdainful gaze. For the majority of patients, there are the following misconceptions about minimally invasive spine surgery: 1. Minimally invasive spine surgery is equivalent to no surgery In fact, from the surgeon’s point of view, the treatment of any disease can be divided into non-surgical treatment (conservative treatment) and surgical treatment. Therefore, non-invasive surgery refers to conservative treatment, while minimally invasive spine surgery is a type of surgical treatment. So why this misconception? It may be related to the exaggerated propaganda of some medical institutions, which take advantage of patients’ fear of surgery for marketing purposes. Is it correct to interpret minimally invasive spine surgery as a “small cut” and open surgery as a “large cut”? This is easy to understand, but it can only be used for the same disease. To take a relatively extreme example, minimally invasive surgery for degenerative scoliosis is many times more traumatic than open discectomy, so there must be a prerequisite for the above statement, which is to be specific to a particular disease. The real essence of minimally invasive spine surgery is to achieve the same therapeutic goals but with less damage associated with the surgical approach. For example, open spine surgery requires stripping the muscles and damaging the ligaments, while minimally invasive spine surgery minimizes damage to the muscles, ligaments and other soft tissues through percutaneous puncture techniques and transmuscular access. In fact, minimally invasive spine surgery includes a variety of percutaneous surgery, microsurgery, access surgery and various combinations. Interventional techniques such as ozone therapy and radiofrequency ablation are only part of the percutaneous techniques, and the indications for this type of technology are often narrow, and only the right cases can be selected to achieve a certain level of efficacy. 3, for some serious spinal degeneration look forward to minimally invasive surgical treatment Many patients come up to the clinic with the request, “Doctor, I do not want to operate, I just want minimally invasive!” . Unfortunately, for these patients with severe spinal degeneration and unrealistic demands, I can only say, “It is neither up to me nor up to you whether you can have minimally invasive surgery. If you come to see me earlier, you may have a chance to have a minimally invasive surgery.” Early detection and treatment are emphasized for any disease, and if you have high expectations for your health, you should start from the usual and preventive approach. Based on the current level of development of minimally invasive spine technology, realistically speaking, minimally invasive spine surgery is more suitable for early lesions. 4. Minimally invasive spine surgery can only treat simple diseases such as lumbar disc herniation In fact, current minimally invasive spine technology has many applications in lumbar disc herniation, lumbar spinal stenosis, lumbar spondylolisthesis, spinal fracture, and spinal tuberculosis, etc. In recent years, a lot of progress has been made in minimally invasive treatment of cervical spine disease and degenerative scoliosis. This can only be a specific analysis on specific diseases. Although the development of minimally invasive techniques for lumbar disc herniation is relatively mature, not all patients with lumbar disc herniation can undergo minimally invasive surgery; and for some complex diseases such as degenerative scoliosis, some doctors also try to minimally invasiveize traditional surgery, which, on the one hand, requires the selection of suitable cases, and on the other hand, whether the long-term results are better than traditional open surgery Further research is still needed.