Patients often ask the question: Is minimally invasive surgery or craniotomy better for the surgical treatment of epilepsy? Here I would like to briefly discuss the concept of “minimally invasive”. Minimally invasive is a surgical concept, not a specific type of surgery. In modern surgical treatment, there is an increasing emphasis on achieving maximum results with minimal trauma, which is known as the minimally invasive concept. The minimally invasive concept includes many components. For example, micro-neurosurgery is a widely accepted minimally invasive concept, which is the use of the operating microscope in craniotomy. Under the microscope, the fine structure of brain tissue and blood vessels can be seen more clearly, which results in less trauma. The application of microscopy has greatly improved the treatment effect of neurosurgery and reduced the complications of surgery. At present, microscope has become a necessary tool for neurosurgery; the application of neuronavigation system provides a very important technical support for minimally invasive neurosurgery. For example, in deep brain tumors, one of the major difficulties in surgery is how to find the tumor accurately. According to traditional imaging and anatomical markers, it is usually easier to locate the lesion on the surface of the brain, but for deep lesions, it is difficult to determine the most appropriate cortical incision based on empirical judgment. The use of a navigation system allows for very accurate identification of the incision and finding the tumor, and is an important tool for minimally invasive techniques. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring is another means to reduce postoperative complications. Continuous dynamic monitoring of nerves or functional areas that may cause damage during surgery allows for real-time observation of neurological functional changes, which allows for timely adjustment of surgical operations to avoid causing permanent functional impairment. When it comes to minimally invasive, it should be especially emphasized that a small incision cannot simply be understood as minimally invasive. Some people think that as long as the incision is small, it is minimally invasive, but it is not. A scalp incision that is a few centimeters long or a few centimeters short makes basically no difference to the damage to the body. However, if the incision in the brain tissue is a few centimeters short, the damage can be significant. Therefore, whether it is minimally invasive surgery or not, for neurosurgery, the damage to the brain tissue is small in order to be called minimally invasive. In fact, within a certain range of resection of intracranial lesions, the size of the scalp incision is often inversely proportional to the damage to the brain tissue. Because the scalp incision is too small, intracranial manipulation will be difficult and will require more retraction of the brain tissue to better reveal the lesion, thus easily leading to brain tissue damage. It is also misleading for some people to think that not opening the skull is minimally invasive. For example, many of the minimally invasive procedures advertised in various medical advertisements are not actually neurosurgical procedures. For example, “buried wire” therapy is said to involve dipping a piece of silk thread into a drug, making a small incision in the limb or back, and burying the silk thread under the skin. In fact, this is not neurosurgery; for example, in some places, magnets are buried under the scalp, also claimed to be minimally invasive, but in fact, it is also not neurosurgery, these “surgeries” do not reach the level of brain tissue. These “surgeries” do not reach the level of brain tissue at all. The currently accepted cause of epilepsy is the localized hyper-synchronized discharge of brain tissue. In addition, there are many strange and bizarre treatments on the internet nowadays. There are a lot of strange treatments on the internet, such as “nanotechnology”, “micro-nanotechnology”, “neuro-repair therapy”. They seem to be very “high class”, but in fact, they are mostly advertisements borrowing the terms of modern science and technology, which are not credible.