Top

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Lumbar Disc Herniation | Research article

Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal vs. interlaminar discectomy for L5–S1 lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective propensity score matching study

Authors: Tusheng Li, Guangnan Yang, Wei Zhong, Jiang Liu, Zhili Ding, Yu Ding

Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

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.

Yoon WW, Koch J. Herniated discs: when is surgery necessary? EFORT Open Rev. 2021;6:526–30. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.6.210020.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Amin RM, Andrade NS, Neuman BJ. Lumbar disc herniation. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017;10:507–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9441-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Zhao XM, Chen AF, Lou XX, Zhang YG. Comparison of three common intervertebral disc discectomies in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on multiple data. J Clin Med. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11226604.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Pan M, Li Q, Li S, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: indications and complications. Pain Physician. 2020;23:49–56. https://doi.org/10.36076/ppj.2020/23/49.CrossRefPubMed

Jarebi M, Awaf A, Lefranc M, Peltier J. A matched comparison of outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar microdiscectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a 2-year retrospective cohort study. Spine J. 2021;21:114–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2020.07.005.CrossRefPubMed

Nie H, Zeng J, Song Y, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for l5–s1 disc herniation via an interlaminar approach versus a transforaminal approach: a prospective randomized controlled study with 2-year follow up. Spine. 2016;41(Suppl 19):B30–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001810.CrossRefPubMed

Li Z, Zhang C, Chen W, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy versus conventional open lumbar discectomy for upper lumbar disc herniation: a comparative cohort study. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:1852070. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1852070.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chen P, Hu Y, Li Z. Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy precedes interlaminar discectomy in the efficacy and safety for lumbar disc herniation. Bioscience Rep. 2019;39:1. https://doi.org/10.1042/BSR20181866.CrossRef

Mo X, Shen J, Jiang W, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar diskectomy for axillar herniation at l5–s1 via the transforaminal approach versus the interlaminar approach: a prospective clinical trial. World Neurosurg. 2019;125:e508–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.01.114.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Gao A, Yang H, Zhu L, et al. Comparison of interlaminar and transforaminal approaches for treatment of l5/s1 disc herniation by percutaneous endoscopic discectomy. Orthop Surg. 2021;13:63–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12831.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Yeung AT, Tsou PM. Posterolateral endoscopic excision for lumbar disc herniation: surgical technique, outcome, and complications in 307 consecutive cases. Spine. 2002;27:722–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200204010-00009.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the oswestry disability index, medical outcomes study questionnaire short form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 2008;8:968–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Claus CF, Lawless M, Lytle E, et al. The effect of morbid obesity on complications, readmission, and patient-reported outcomes following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an inverse propensity score weighted analysis. Spine. 2021;46:1394–401. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000004059.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Wang YB, Chen SL, Cao C, Zhang K, Liu LM, Gao YZ. Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and fenestration discectomy to treat posterior ring apophyseal fractures: a retrospective cohort study. Orthop Surg. 2020;12:1092–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12698.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Xuan A, Ruan D, Wang C, et al. Intradiscal injection of autologous discogenic cells in patients with discectomy: a prospective clinical study of its safety and feasibility. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2022;11:490–503. https://doi.org/10.1093/stcltm/szac013.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Schneiderman G, Flannigan B, Kingston S, Thomas J, Dillin WH, Watkins RG. Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of disc degeneration: correlation with discography. Spine. 1987;12:276–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198704000-00016.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Frymoyer JW, Selby DK. Segmental instability. Rationale for treatment. Spine. 1985;10:280–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198504000-00017.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Andrade C. Mean difference, standardized mean difference (smd), and their use in meta-analysis: as simple as it gets. J Clin Psychiatry. 2020. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.20f13681.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Hasvik E, Haugen AJ, Grovle L. Symptom descriptors and patterns in lumbar radicular pain caused by disc herniation: a 1-year longitudinal cohort study. BMJ Open. 2022;12: e65500. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065500.CrossRef

20.

Harper R, Klineberg E. The evidence-based approach for surgical complications in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Int Orthop. 2019;43:975–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4255-6.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Cheng YP, Cheng XK, Wu H. A comparative study of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy and transforaminal discectomy for l5–s1 calcified lumbar disc herniation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23:244. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05186-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Chen J, Jing X, Li C, Jiang Y, Cheng S, Ma J. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for l5s1 lumbar disc herniation using a transforaminal approach versus an interlaminar approach: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2018;116:412–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.05.075.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Ahn Y, Kim CH, Lee JH, Lee SH, Kim JS. Radiation exposure to the surgeon during percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a prospective study. Spine. 2013;38:617–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318275ca58.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Zhou Z, Ni HJ, Zhao W, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy via transforaminal approach combined with interlaminar approach for l4/5 and l5/s1 two-level disc herniation. Orthop Surg. 2021;13:979–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12862.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Yu Y, Zhou Q, Xie YZ, et al. Effect of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar foraminoplasty of different facet joint portions on lumbar biomechanics: a finite element analysis. Orthop Surg. 2020;12:1277–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12740.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Prado M, Mascoli C, Giambini H. Discectomy decreases facet joint distance and increases the instability of the spine: a finite element study. Comput Biol Med. 2022;143: 105278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105278.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal vs. interlaminar discectomy for L5–S1 lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective propensity score matching study
Authors: Tusheng Li
Guangnan Yang
Wei Zhong
Jiang Liu
Zhili Ding
Yu Ding
Publication date: 01-12-2024
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Lumbar Disc Herniation
Lumbar Disc Herniation
Disc Herniation
Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1749-799X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04543-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal vs. interlaminar discectomy for L5–S1 lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective propensity score matching study

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Landet: an efficient physics-informed deep learning approach for automatic detection of anatomical landmarks and measurement of spinopelvic alignment

Aseptic loosening around total joint replacement in humans is regulated by miR-1246 and miR-6089 via the Wnt signalling pathway

Anatomic distribution of basivertebral foramen with a magistral form in vertebral bodies of T10~L5 and its clinical significance for extensive epidural cement leakage in cement-augmented pedicle screw fixation: a multicenter case–control study

SP1 transcriptionally activates HTR2B to aggravate traumatic spinal cord injury by shifting microglial M1/M2 polarization

Duloxetine reduces opioid consumption and pain after total hip or knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Comparison of different degrees of varus deformity correction with open-wedge high tibial osteotomy: a retrospective study over 5 years