Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 5, 2025
A Mobile Outside-in Technique of Transforaminal Lumbar Endoscopy for Lumbar Disc Herniations
Published on: August 7, 2018
Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal vs. interlaminar discectomy for L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective
Tusheng Li1,2, Guangnan Yang3, Wei Zhong1
1Orthopedics of TCM Senior Department, The Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, 6 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100048, People's Republic of China.
Objective:
Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgery for treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH); however, the comparative clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) in treating L5-S1 LDH remains unclear. This study compared the clinical advantages of PEID and PETD for treating L5-S1 LDH.
Methods:
This was a single-centre retrospective study analysing clinical data from 120 patients with L5-S1 LDH between February 2016 and May 2020. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for imbalanced confounding variables between the two groups. Perioperative data were recorded, and clinical outcomes, including functional scores and imaging data, were compared between groups. Functional scores included visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria. Imaging data included disc height index (DHI), ratio of greyscale (RVG), and range of motion (ROM) of the responsible segment.
Results:
After PSM, 78 patients were included in the study, and all covariates were well balanced between the two groups. In the matched patients, the PEID group showed significantly shorter surgical time (65.41 ± 5.05 vs. 84.08 ± 5.12 min) and lower frequency of fluoroscopy (2.93 ± 0.63 vs. 11.56 ± 1.54) compared with the PETD group (P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, total incision length, and incidence of complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). After surgery, both groups showed significant improvement in back and leg pain based on VAS and ODI scores (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in clinical functional scores and imaging data between the two groups at various time points after surgery (P > 0.05). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rates in the PEID group and PETD group were 91.89% and 89.19%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05).
Conclusion:
PEID and PETD have similar clinical efficacy in treating L5-S1 disc herniation. However, PEID is superior to PETD in reducing operation time and frequency of fluoroscopy.
