Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 21, 2025
Transtubular Endoscopic Posterolateral Decompression for L5-S1 Lumbar Lateral Disc Herniation
Published on: October 14, 2022
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Using a Double-Cannula Guide Tube for Large Lumbar Disc Herniation
Hongwei Wang1,2,3, Hong Yuan1, Hailong Yu1
1Department of Orthopedics, General Hospital of Northern Theater Command of Chinese PLA, Shenyang, China.
Objective:
To compare the effect of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) using a double-cannula guide tube (DGT), traditional PELD, and open lumbar discectomy (OLD) to treat large lumbar disc herniations (LLDHs).
Methods:
Seventy patients who presented with LLDH without cauda equina syndrome and were treated with surgery in our hospital from October 2015 to October 2017 were included. The detailed index included the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and radicular leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in the immediate preoperative period and at the final follow-up. The operation time, radiation exposure time, surgical satisfaction rate, and modified MacNab criteria score were also recorded.
Results:
The leg and back pain of the patients in these groups improved significantly in the postoperative period. No significant differences were observed in leg pain improvement between the other two groups; however, patients in the PELD group (with or without DGT) presented with significantly higher improvement in back pain than the OLD group (t = 9.965, p < 0.001). The final ODI scores were 12.1 ± 4.9, 11.2 ± 2.9, and 16.4 ± 3.6 in the PELD, PELD-DGT, and OLD groups, respectively. Patients in the PELD and PELD-DGT groups presented with significantly lower postoperative ODI scores than those in the OLD group (t = 20.834, p < 0.001). The mean postoperative hospital stays were significantly shorter in the PELD group and PELD with DGT group than in the OLD group (t = 46.688, p < 0.001). The mean operation time was significantly shorter in the PELD-DGT group than those in the PELD group (t = 25.281, p = 0.001). No perioperative complications were observed in either group. Based on the modified MacNab criteria, excellent and good outcomes were achieved in 20 out of 21 patients (95.2%) in the PELD group, 23 out of 24 patients (95.8%) in the PELD-DGT group, and 22 out of 25 patients (88.0%) in the OLD group. The rates of excellent and good outcomes were higher in the PELD and PELD-DGT groups than in the OLD group, but there were no significant differences (χ2 = 1.454, p = 0.835).
Conclusions:
PELD using DGT is a safe and effective option for LLDH and features advantages such as improvements in back pain, a lower hospitalization cost than OLD, a shorter operation time, and less fluoroscopy than traditional PELD.
