Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 26, 2025
A Mobile Outside-in Technique of Transforaminal Lumbar Endoscopy for Lumbar Disc Herniations
Published on: August 7, 2018
Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy and Open Fenestration Discectomy for Single-Segment
Cheng Ma1, He Li1, Teng Zhang1
1Department of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
Purpose:
Both percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and open fenestration discectomy (OFD) are effective and safe surgical procedures for the treatment of LDH. The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the surgical outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and OFD for single-segment huge lumbar disc herniation (HLDH).
Patients And Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed 91 patients diagnosed with single-segment HLDH and treated with OFD or PEID. Visual analog scale (VAS), modified Japanese orthopedic association (mJOA) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were used to assess clinical outcomes at preoperation and postoperatively at 3, 6, 12, and 24months. Modified Macnab criteria were applied to evaluate clinically satisfaction at the final follow-up.
Results:
In both groups, the VAS and ODI scores at 3, 6, 12, and 24months postoperatively showed a significant decrease and the mJOA score at 3, 6, 12, and 24months postoperatively was significantly increased compared to preoperative results (P<0.001). According to Macnab criteria at the final follow-up, the overall clinically satisfactory rate was 86.67% in the OFD group and 86.96% in the PEID group. There were no significant differences in VAS, ODI, and mJOA scores between the two groups at preoperation and postoperative 3, 6, 12, and 24months, respectively. In the PEID group, the length of hospitalization and the length of incision were significantly shorter than that in the OFD group (P<0.0001). However, there was no significant difference in operative time between groups (P=0.81).
Conclusion:
Collectively, postoperative clinical results were equally favorable for both procedures, with no statistically significant difference between PEID and OFD at the two-year of follow-up. No serious complication was observed in two groups. Compared with the traditional surgery, PEID has the following benefits: less trauma, less bleeding, speedy recovery, and shorter hospitalization. Therefore, PEID may be a promising alternative to traditional surgery.
