Patents and publications, the formal record

U.S. Patent 8,152,796

U.S. Patent 8,152,796 — issued April 10, 2012. Title and claims relate to percutaneous spine instrumentation. Independently searchable on the USPTO patent database by patent number.

The patent reflects technical innovation in minimally invasive spine surgery — specifically in instruments and techniques that reduce surgical tissue disruption. Patents in this area cluster around the goal of accomplishing surgical objectives through smaller incisions with more precise instrumentation.

U.S. Patent 9,050,097

U.S. Patent 9,050,097 — issued June 9, 2015. Title and claims also relate to percutaneous spine instrumentation. Builds on the 2012 patent’s foundation with refinements and additional claims.

Together, the two patents represent the formal record of Dr. McMillan’s technical contributions in this area. USPTO records are the authoritative source; patent numbers are searchable directly at uspto.gov.

Publications and presentations

Dr. McMillan’s clinical work is primarily reflected in patient care and surgical outcomes rather than in extensive academic publication. He has presented at professional society meetings and contributed to discussion of endoscopic and percutaneous spine surgery techniques in clinical settings.

For the published evidence base supporting the procedures performed at Synergy, see /the-evidence/, which cites the relevant clinical literature from Ruetten, Weinstein, and other primary investigators in endoscopic and surgical comparative outcomes.

Why this matters for patients

Patents and publications are one element of physician evaluation, alongside training, board certification, practice experience, and outcomes track record. None alone is sufficient; together they form a picture.

For a patient evaluating a surgeon, the patents themselves matter less than what they signal: technical curiosity, engagement with the technical aspects of the field, and willingness to think rigorously about how procedures could be done better. These traits often correlate with the careful, technique-focused approach that produces good outcomes.

Written bySteven Lockhart, Healthcare Marketing Group

Medically reviewed byMarion R. McMillan, MD, Interventional Pain Medicine & Endoscopic Spine Surgery

U.S. Patent 8,152,796 (2012)

Issued April 10, 2012. Title: Method for percutaneous treatment of intervertebral disc pathology. Publicly searchable at Google Patents and the official USPTO database. Describes a technique for accessing and treating intervertebral disc pathology through a percutaneous approach — through a small skin puncture rather than open dissection. Forms part of the procedural foundation for percutaneous laser disc decompression as performed at Synergy.

U.S. Patent 9,050,097 (2015)

Issued June 9, 2015. Title: Apparatus for spinal endoscopic procedures. Publicly searchable at Google Patents. Describes a specific apparatus configuration for endoscopic spinal procedures, including the working channel and visualization arrangements allowing surgical work through a sub-⅓-inch incision. Forms part of the procedural foundation for full-endoscopic spine surgery across all anatomical levels.

Why patents matter clinically

The USPTO grants a patent only when the claimed method or apparatus is demonstrably novel, non-obvious, and useful. Patents don’t establish efficacy on their own — that requires peer-reviewed clinical evidence — but they do reflect that the surgeon performing the procedure has invested in technique refinement rather than passive adoption of an off-the-shelf approach. The practical implication for patients: the procedures performed at Synergy aren’t identical to “endoscopic spine surgery” as generically performed, and the procedural variations covered may translate to differences in candidacy and technique.

Society participation and peer-reviewed evidence

Dr. McMillan is a member of NASS and AANS. The broader peer-reviewed literature on endoscopic spine surgery is searchable through PubMed, and our curated evidence summary is at /the-evidence/.

The clinical technique behind the patents

The percutaneous approach covered by Patent 8,152,796 addresses a specific clinical problem: how to access disc pathology without the extensive muscle dissection required by traditional open discectomy. Traditional open discectomy requires an incision of several centimeters with retraction of paraspinal muscles, laminotomy or laminectomy to access the spinal canal, and direct visualization of the herniated disc material. The percutaneous approach uses a small trocar puncture followed by working channel dilation to access the disc without the muscle disruption. The clinical benefit is faster recovery, less post-operative pain, and preservation of spinal stability that muscle dissection can compromise.

The apparatus covered by Patent 9,050,097 addresses a related but distinct challenge: how to visualize and manipulate tissue through the small working channel. Full-endoscopic spine surgery uses an endoscope inserted through the working channel with the surgical tools passing through channels within the endoscope itself. The apparatus design determines what tissue manipulation is possible, what visualization quality can be achieved, and what surgical maneuvers are practical. The patent reflects specific design choices developed through clinical experience with the earlier percutaneous approach.

The clinical application at Synergy uses both the underlying percutaneous technique and endoscopic apparatus refinements to perform full-endoscopic decompression through a sub-⅓-inch incision. The procedures performed most commonly using these techniques include endoscopic discectomy for lumbar herniated disc, endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis, and endoscopic foraminotomy for foraminal stenosis. The transforaminal and interlaminar approaches (transforaminal and interlaminar) are anatomical variations chosen based on the specific pathology and patient anatomy.

Publications specifically about the practice’s outcomes are limited — the practice is clinical rather than academic, and publication in peer-reviewed journals is a separate pursuit from clinical work. Patients researching outcomes are best served by the broader peer-reviewed literature on endoscopic spine surgery, comprehensively searchable through PubMed, along with the practice’s clinical experience which is best explored through the free MRI review and phone consultation process.

Further reading and authoritative sources

The pages linked below cover related topics in more detail. For patients who prefer independent, non-practice sources, the external references at the end of the list provide authoritative verification of clinical facts, procedural information, and regulatory context. This practice’s clinical statements are traceable to the peer-reviewed literature and professional-society guidelines listed here.

Related pages on this site:

• About Dr. McMillan — details, indications, and process context relevant to the topic above.
• Credentials & Training — details, indications, and process context relevant to the topic above.
• The Evidence — details, indications, and process context relevant to the topic above.
• Our Philosophy — details, indications, and process context relevant to the topic above.
• Full-Endoscopic Spine Surgery — details, indications, and process context relevant to the topic above.
• Percutaneous Laser Disc Decompression — details, indications, and process context relevant to the topic above.

Independent authoritative sources:

• USPTO — U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — authoritative independent source for verification and further reading.
• Google Patents — Public Patent Database — authoritative independent source for verification and further reading.

For patients whose questions extend beyond the material covered here, the direct path forward is the free MRI review for candidacy-specific questions or a phone call to (864) 886-9888 for process or logistics questions. The practice’s broader clinical philosophy — including the reasoning behind the no-fusion-first orientation and the single-surgeon model — is documented at /our-philosophy/.