Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 29, 2026

Author Spotlight: Unveiling the Potential of TUBE Technique in Spinal Surgery
Published on: November 17, 2023
Cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy versus endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation
Kyung-Chul Choi1, Hyeong-Ki Shim1, Jin-Sung Kim2
1Department of Neurosurgery, the Leon Wiltse Memorial Hospital, Anyang, Korea.
Background Context:
Microdiscectomy is a standard technique for the surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Endoscopic discectomy (ED) is another surgical option that has become popular owing to reports of shorter hospitalization and earlier return to work. No study has evaluated health care costs associated with lumbar discectomy techniques and compared cost-effectiveness.
Purpose:
To assess the cost-effectiveness of four surgical techniques for LDH: microdiscectomy (MD), transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD), interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD), and unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED).
Study Design And Setting:
Retrospective analysis.
Patient Sample:
Patients who underwent either MD or ED for primary LDH with 1-year follow-up between the ages of 20 and 60 years old.
Outcome Measures:
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
Methods:
Five hundred sixty-five patients aged 20-60 years who underwent treatment using one of the four surgical techniques with at least 1-year follow-up were reviewed. Health care costs were defined as the sum of direct and indirect costs. The former included the covered and uncovered costs of the National Health Insurance from operation to 1-year follow-up; indirect costs included costs incurred by work loss. Direct and indirect costs were evaluated separately. ICER was determined using cost/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Health care costs and ICER were compared statistically among the four surgical groups. Cost-effectiveness was compared statistically between MD and ED.
Results:
One hundred fifty-seven patients who underwent TELD, 132 for IELD, 140 for UBED, and 136 for MD were enrolled. The direct costs of TELD, IELD, UBED, and MD were $3,452.2±1,211.5, $3,907.3±895.3, $4,049.2±1,134.6, and $4,302.1±1,028.9, respectively (p<.01). The indirect costs of TELD, IELD, UBED, and MD were $574.5±495.9, $587.8±488.3, $647.4±455.6, and $759.7±491.7, respectively (p<.01). The 1-year QALY gains were 0.208 for TELD, 0.211 for IELD, 0.194 for UBED, and 0.186 for MD. ICER (costs/QALY) was the highest for MD ($34,840.4±25,477.9, p<.01). Compared with MD, ED saved an additional net of $8,064 per QALY (p<.01). There was no significant difference in the ICERs among the three endoscopic techniques.
Conclusions:
ED was more cost-effective compared with MD at 1-year follow up.
Related Concept Videos
Endoscopic Studies II: Thoracocentesis
Description
Excess pleural fluid or air may accumulate in some respiratory disorders in the thoracic cavity. To treat pleural effusion, a physician conducts thoracentesis by carefully piercing the chest wall and entering...
Endoscopic Procedures I: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy
During an EGD, the endoscope can be used to:
Endoscopic Procedures II: Colonoscopy
Endoscopic Procedures V: ERCP
Patient...
Buffer Effectiveness
The buffer capacity is the amount of acid or base that can be added to a given volume...
Framing Effects

