Comparison of conventional fenestration discectomy with Transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy for treating lumbar disc herniation:minimum 2-year long-term follow-up in 1100 patients

• Published in: BMC musculoskeletal disorders Vol. 21; no. 1; p. 628
• Main Authors: Li, Quanyi, Zhou, Yongchun
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 23-09-2020; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Comparative analysis; Diskectomy - adverse effects; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Efficacy; Endoscopy; Follow-Up Studies; Health aspects; Humans; Immobilization; Intervertebral Disc Displacement - diagnostic imaging; Intervertebral Disc Displacement - surgery; Intervertebral discs; Lumbar disc herniation; Lumbar Vertebrae - diagnostic imaging; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery; Magnetic resonance imaging; Methylene blue; Musculoskeletal diseases; Pain; Patients; Posterior approach; Retrospective Studies; Surgery; Surgical outcomes; Transforaminal endoscopic discectomy; Treatment Outcome; United States > US; Efficacy; Lumbar disc herniation; Posterior approach; Transforaminal endoscopic discectomy
• ISSN: 1471-2474; 1471-2474
• DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-03652-0

To compare the efficacy of conventional interlaminar fenestration discectomy (IFD) with transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) for treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH).
The clinical data of 1100 patients who had been diagnosed with LDH between January 2012 and December 2017 were retrospectively analysed. IFD was performed on 605 patients in Group A, whereas TELD was performed on 505 patients in Group B. The Oswestry Disability Index, Visual Analogue Scale for pain and modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the outcomes. The surgery duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative off-bed activity and postoperative length of hospital stay were recorded.
The follow-up period ranged from 24 to 60 months, with an average of 43 months. The excellent and good outcome rates were 93.5% in Group A and 92.6% in Group B. There was no significant difference in efficacy between the groups (P > 0.05). However, Group B had significantly less intraoperative blood loss and shorter bed rest duration and postoperative length of hospital stay than Group A (P < 0.05). There were two cases of postoperative recurrence in Group A and three in Group B.
Although conventional IFD and TELD had similar levels of efficacy in treating LDH, TELD had several advantages. There was less intraoperative bleeding, shorter length of hospital stay and shorter bed rest duration. It can be considered a safe and effective surgical option for treating LDH.