Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 1, 2026
A Mobile Outside-in Technique of Transforaminal Lumbar Endoscopy for Lumbar Disc Herniations
Published on: August 7, 2018
Clinical Outcomes of Full-Endoscopic Visualized Foraminoplasty and Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation with
Changgui Shi1, Lecheng Wu1, Guoke Tang1,2
1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Objective:
The treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) with bilateral radiculopathy using transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) remains challenging, especially at the L5/S1 level with narrow foramen or high iliac crest. Full-endoscopic visualized foraminoplasty and discectomy (FEVFD) is a newly developed technique for LDH and lumbar stenosis. However, there is limited evidence on the efficacy of FEVFD technique in the treatment of LDH with bilateral radiculopathy. This study was to assess the clinical outcomes and safety of using FEVFD in the treatment of LDH with bilateral radiculopathy.
Methods:
This retrospective study enrolled 63 patients with LDH presenting with bilateral radiculopathy between January 2018 and January 2022. Patients enrolled before January 2020 were treated using a conventional transforaminal endoscopic surgical system (TESSYS) technique (TESSYS, n = 33) and treated using a FEVFD technique after that (FEVFD, n = 30). The total operation time and the number of intraoperative fluoroscopies were recorded. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively (at 1-month, 3-month, 6-month, and final follow-ups). Global outcomes at final follow-up were assessed using modified MacNab criteria.
Results:
Compared with TESSYS, patients in FEVFD group had a shorter operation time (92.9 vs. 78.0 min). The intraoperative fluoroscopies in FEVFD group were significantly lower than those in TESSYS group (18.7 vs. 4.9). After the operation, the VAS and ODI scores at all follow-ups in the two groups were significantly lower than those before operation. For the L5/S1 level, the values of VAS and ODI scores in FEVFD group were significantly lower than those of in TESSYS group at 3-month, 6-month, and final follow-up. For the L4/5 level, however, no significant difference was found in VAS and ODI scores between these two groups at the follow-ups. According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent-to-good rate in TESSYS and FEVFD groups was 84.8% and 90.0%, respectively.
Conclusion:
For LDH with bilateral radiculopathy, using the FEVFD technique could not only reduce the operation time and radiation, but also improve the clinical outcomes at the L5/S1 level.
