Different approaches to percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L5/S1 lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study

Abstract

Objective

To observe the surgical procedure and outcome of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L5/S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH) by the interlaminar and transforaminal approach.

Methods

A total of 153 patients with L5/S1 LDH who were treated using percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD, n = 84) or percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID, n = 69) from January 2016 to January 2018 were enrolled in this retrospective study. The time of puncture, operation under the endoscope, total operation and number of fluoroscopy of the two groups were compared. All groups were followed up for two years by using the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Additionally, the incidence of complications, reoperation and postoperative low back pain were compared between the two groups.

Results

There were no significant difference in general information between the two groups. Compared to the PEID group, the PETD group had a decreased operation time under the endoscope and an increased puncture time, total operation time, and the number of fluoroscopy (p < 0.05). The preoperative VAS and ODI scores of the PETD and PEID group were decreased at the last follow-up (p < 0.05). There were no difference in the preoperative or last follow-up VAS and ODI scores, as well as complications, reoperation between the two groups (p > 0.05). The incidence of postoperative low back pain in the PETD group was lower than that in the PEID group (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

The two-year clinical outcome of PETD is equal to that of PEID for L5/S1 LDH. Compared to those with PETD, the puncture time, total operation time and radiation exposure are lower with PEID, but the incidence of postoperative low back pain is higher.

Keywords:

• Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy
• percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy
• lumbar disc herniation

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [81860216 to Daying Zhang and 81903595 to Mengye Zhu] and the Innovation Foundation of Jiangxi Province [YC2020-B049 to Yi Yan].