Cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy versus endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation

Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy, Chemonucleolysis, Microdiscectomy, and Microendoscopic Discectomy for Symptomatic Lumbar Disc Herniation: One-year Follow-up Clinical Results and Disc Degeneration

This study compared the 1-year clinical outcomes and disc degeneration rates after transforaminal full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TF-FED), condoliase injection, open discectomy (OD), and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). In total, 279 patients with LDH were divided into four treatment groups: TF-FED, OD, MED, and condoliase injection. Outcomes were evaluated on the basis of the complication rate, Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and the modified MacNab criteria. Surgical and hospital costs were assessed. Disc degeneration and endplate bone marrow edema were evaluated using magnetic resonance images. The mean postoperative JOABPEQ, VAS, or modified MacNab scores among the four groups had no significant differences. Additionally, the nerve injury or reoperation rate among the TF-FED, OD, and MED groups had no significant difference. However, the reoperation rate with condoliase injection was high because of residual disc herniation. Surgical and hospital costs were lower with condoliase injection and higher with OD and MED than those with TF-FED. With TF-FED and condoliase injection, the Pfirrmann grade progressed, and the disc height was significantly smaller than that with OD and MED. Endplate bone marrow edema was more common with condoliase injection and TF-FED. All groups had good outcomes. TF-FED and condoliase injection may reduce the burden of surgery because they can be performed under local anesthesia with little blood loss and low medical costs but tend to be associated with disc degeneration and endplate bone marrow edema. A randomized controlled study with a larger sample is needed.

Global utilization of biportal spinal endoscopy: Case series on management of lumbar pathology in Soddo, Ethiopia

INTRODUCTION

Biportal spinal endoscopy is a safe and cost-effective methodology for the management of lumbar pathology in rural underserved hospitals that have standard orthopaedic arthroscopic equipment, but lack access to microscopy.

METHODS

This is a case series noting 1-year outcomes from 5 patients managed with biportal spinal endoscopy during an 11-day mission trip to Soddo, Ethiopia in November 2022. Surgical complications, postoperative assessments, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Surgical techniques and equipment utilized were shared with residents and faculty at the hospital.

RESULTS

Five Ethiopian patients (4:1, female:male) with no prior spine surgery history elected to undergo biportal surgery for the diagnoses of lumbar stenosis and disc herniation, averaging 31 years of age with Body-Mass-Indices (BMI) <35. Two patients underwent endoscopic discectomy, and three patients underwent endoscopic unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (ULBD). There were no complications. No postoperative functional deficits, infections, readmissions, revisions, or wound dehiscences were noted at 12 months follow-up. VAS-back and VAS-leg scores improved to <2/10 for 80 % of patients. All patients returned to work/activities of daily living. No patients required postoperative pain management beyond the 2-week post-operative follow-up.

CONCLUSION

With these five patients, we found that biportal spinal endoscopy can be safely applied in rural hospital settings with limited resources. This supports biportal spinal endoscopy as a viable minimally invasive modality for the management of lumbar pathology. For hospitals with limited resources, but access to arthroscopic equipment, biportal spinal endoscopy is a feasible option.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

How Do the True Intraoperative Costs of Endoscopic Diskectomy Compare With Microdiskectomy for Lumbar Disk Herniations? A Time-Driven Activity-Based Cost Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic lumbar diskectomy (ED) is a minimally invasive option for addressing lumbar disk herniations. With the introduction of value-based care systems, assessing the true cost of certain procedures is critical when creating reimbursement models and comparing procedures. Here, we compared the costs of performing a microdiskectomy (MD) and ED using time-driven activity-based costing.

METHODS

Total cost for the intraoperative episode was calculated using time-driven activity-based costing methodology. Individual costs were obtained by direct observation and electronic medical records and through querying multiple departments (business operations, sterile processing, plant operations, and pharmacy). Timestamps for all involved personnel and material resources were documented. A retrospective analysis was performed on 202 patients who underwent lumbar diskectomy through either MD (n = 167) or ED (n = 35) from 2018 to 2022. Personnel cost was calculated by multiplying the cost per unit time for each personnel type by the length of time spent in the operating room. Supply cost was calculated by aggregating the cost of all individual supplies, from medications to consumables to surgical trays, used during the case. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were performed comparing the costs between these procedures.

RESULTS

The average intraoperative cost per case for ED and MD was $3915 ± $1025 and $3162 ± $954, respectively. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that ED had higher total cost (β-coefficient: $912 ± $281, P = <.01) and supply cost (β-coefficient: $474 ± $155, P = <.01) than MD. When accounting for surgeon as a covariate, however, total cost (P = .478) and supply cost (P = .468) differences between ED and MD were negligible.

CONCLUSION

ED has shown to be a better value option in addressing lumbar disk herniations, mostly because of advantages in perioperative care. Here, we show that when correcting for surgeon-level effects, the cost between the two procedures is statistically insignificant, reaffirming the value provided by ED.

Does obesity and varying body mass index affect the clinical outcomes and safety of biportal endoscopic lumbar decompression? A comparative cohort study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic spine surgery has recently grown in popularity due to the potential benefits of reduced pain and faster recovery time as compared to open surgery. Biportal spinal endoscopy has been successfully applied to lumbar disc herniations and lumbar spinal stenosis. Obesity is associated with increased risk of complications in spine surgery. Few prior studies have investigated the impact of obesity and associated medical comorbidities with biportal spinal endoscopy.

METHODS

This study was a prospectively collected, retrospectively analyzed comparative cohort design. Patients were divided into cohorts of normal body weight (Bone Mass Index (BMI)18.0-24.9), overweight (BMI 25.0-29.9) and obese (BMI > 30.0) as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO). Patients underwent biportal spinal endoscopy by a single surgeon at a single institution for treatment of lumbar disc herniations and lumbar spinal stenosis. Demographic data, surgical complications, and patient-reported outcomes were analyzed. Statistics were calculated amongst treatment groups using analysis of variance and chi square where appropriate. Statistical significance was determined as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients were followed. 26 (30.1%) were normal BMI, 35 (41.7%) were overweight and 23 (27.4%) were obese. Patients with increasing BMI had correspondingly greater American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) scores. There were no significant differences in VAS Back, VAS Leg, and ODI scores, or postoperative complications among the cohorts. There were no cases of surgical site infections in the cohort. All cohorts demonstrated significant improvement up to 1 year postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that obesity is not a risk factor for increased perioperative complications with biportal spinal endoscopy and has similar clinical outcomes and safety profile as compared to patients with normal BMI. Biportal spinal endoscopy is a promising alternative to traditional techniques to treat common lumbar pathology.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) with microdiscectomy (MD) for treating lumbar disk herniation (LDH).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Web of Science databases from database inception to April 2023 to identify studies comparing UBED and MD for treating LDH. This study evaluated the visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Macnab scores, operation time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, and complications, estimated blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Macnab scores at various pre- and post-surgery stages. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 9 distinct studies with a total of 1001 patients. The VAS scores for low back pain showed no significant differences between the groups at postoperative 1-3 months (P = 0.09) and final follow-up (P = 0.13); however, the UBED group had lower VAS scores at postoperative 1-3 days (P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in leg pain VAS scores at baseline (P = 0.05), postoperative 1-3 days (P = 0.24), postoperative 1-3 months (P = 0.78), or at the final follow-up (P = 0.43). ODI comparisons revealed no significant differences preoperatively (P = 0.83), at postoperative 1 week (P = 0.47), or postoperative 1-3 months (P = 0.13), and the UBED group demonstrated better ODI at the final follow-up (P = 0.03). The UBED group also exhibited a shorter mean operative time (P = 0.03), significantly shorter hospital stay (P < 0.00001), and less estimated blood loss (P = 0.0002). Complications and modified MacNab scores showed no significant differences between the groups (P = 0.56 and P = 0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The evidence revealed no significant differences in efficacy between UBED and MD for LDH treatment. However, UBED may offer potential benefits such as shorter hospital stays, lower estimated blood loss, and comparable complication rates.

Advances and Challenges of Endoscopic Spine Surgery

The purpose of this paper is to review the data supporting current endoscopic surgical techniques for the spine and the potential challenges and future of the field. The origins of endoscopic spine surgery can be traced back many decades, with many important innovations throughout its development. It can be applied to all levels of the spine, with many robust trials supporting its clinical outcomes. Continued clinical research is needed to explore its expanding indications. Although the limitations of starting an endoscopic program can be justified by its cost effectiveness and positive societal impact, challenges facing its widespread adoption are still present. As more residency and fellowship programs include endoscopy as part of their spine training, it will become more prevalent in hospitals in the United States. Technological advancements in spine surgery will further propel and enhance endoscopic techniques as they become an integral part of a spine surgeon's repertoire.

Analysis of the clinical efficacy of visualization of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy combined with annulus fibrosus suture in lumbar disc herniation

The objective of this study is to compare the clinical effectiveness of visualization of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (VPELD) combined with annulus fibrosus suture technique and simple percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) technique in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 106 cases of lumbar disc herniation treated with foraminoscopic technique at our hospital from January 2020 to February 2022. Among them, 33 cases were treated with VPELD combined with annulus fibrosus suture in group A, and 73 cases were treated with PELD in group B. The preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS), functional index (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI), healing of the annulus fibrosus, intervertebral space height, and postoperative recurrence were recorded and compared between the two groups. All patients underwent preoperative and postoperative MRI examinations, and the average follow-up period was 12 ± 2 months. Both groups showed significant improvements in postoperative VAS and ODI scores compared to the preoperative scores (P < 0.05), with no statistically significant difference between the groups during the same period (P > 0.05). There was no significant decrease in intervertebral space between the two groups after surgery (P > 0.05). Group A showed significantly lower postoperative recurrence rate and better annulus fibrosus healing compared to group B (P < 0.05). The VPELD combined with annulus fibrosus suture technique is a safe, feasible, and effective procedure for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. When the indications are strictly adhered to, this technique can effectively reduce the postoperative recurrence rate and reoperation rate. It offers satisfactory clinical efficacy and can be considered as an alternative treatment option for eligible patients.

Feasibility of Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy in a Remote Government Hospital in Thailand: A Cost-Utility Analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatments for lumbar discectomy have developed over time. Recently, endoscopy has played an important role. However, a major obstacle to endoscopy in rural areas is the cost of surgery, particularly for endoscopes and disposable equipment. We assessed the cost effectiveness of endoscopic lumbar discectomy compared to the traditional open microdiscectomy technique in a government hospital in a developing country.

METHODS

This study focused on 50 patients who underwent endoscopic lumbar discectomy between April 2019 and March 2020 at Yala Regional Hospital and were reviewed by our team. The duration of hospital stays, operative time, follow-up, and clinical outcomes at one, three, and six months postoperatively were observed and compared with 30 patients who underwent microscopic lumbar discectomy. Hospital expenses were calculated and compared using t-tests.

RESULTS

Endoscopic discectomy was 4.00 days length of stay while microscopic discectomy has 9.77 days in averages. The pain score was 8.82 for endoscopic surgery and 9.1 for microscopic surgery. The operative price for the endoscopic discectomy was 144.69 USD higher than that for the open lumbar discectomy because of the disposable equipment. However, each patient in the microdiscectomy group had a longer hospital stay and required more perioperative care, which decreased the difference of the total hospital expenses (1,420.612 vs 1,399.16 USD).

CONCLUSION

Full endoscopic lumbar discectomy is an effective procedure that is beneficial for patients. The total hospital costs are not significantly different between the two procedures. To ensure that more patients receive this benefit and to develop surgical competency in government hospitals, the surgical reimbursement fee for endoscopic discectomy should be more affordable than that for conventional discectomy.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic versus uniportal full-endoscopic for lumbar degenerative disease: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing use of unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) and uniportal full-endoscopic (UPFE) techniques in lumbar degenerative disease (LDD), few comprehensive and systematic studies have been published comparing UBE and UPFE. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the surgical outcomes of the two procedures.

METHODS

We searched all studies that compared operative outcomes of UBE and UPFE for lumbar disc degeneration disease from PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and other databases up to March 30, 2022.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis, which included nine articles, showed that in operative time, (mean difference [MD]: 17.14; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 6.52 to 27.76), intraoperative bleeding (MD: 59.01; 95% CI: 21.29 to 96.73) and hospital stay (MD: 2.12; 95% CI: 0.35 to 3.90), the UPFE group was more advantageous. UBE had an advantage in terms of postoperative dural expansion area (MD: 59.01; 95% CI: 21.29 to 96.73). These aspects included postoperative clinical score (MD: 0.48; 95% CI: -0.27 to 1.24; MD: -0.07; 95% CI: -0.30 to 0.16; MD: 0.09; 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.26; MD: 0.11; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.26; MD: -0.81; 95% CI: -3.03 to 1.41; MD: -0.38; 95% CI: -1.02 to 0.26), excellent and good rate (odds ratio [OR] = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.34 to 3.44), complications (OR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.31 to 2.12), postoperative hospital stay (MD: 1.63; 95% CI: -0.81 to 4.07) and mean number of fluoroscopies (MD: -7.18; 95% CI: -22.84 to 8.48), with no significant difference between the two groups. Meanwhile, the lumbar disc herniation (LDH) subgroup of UPFE had a significantly shorter operation time (MD: 31.67; 95% CI: 12.44 to 50.90) than that of UBE.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that UPFE was associated with shorter operative time, less intraoperative bleeding and shorter hospital stay, whereas UBE was associated with a greater increase in postoperative dural sac area. Postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, satisfaction rates, complications, and mean number of fluoroscopic views were not dramatically dissimilar in UBE and UPFE for LDD. In the LDH subgroup, postoperative hospital stay and operative time were significantly lower in the UPFE group than in the UBE group.

The Call for Neuroendoscopy Cadaveric Workshops in Lower-Middle Income Countries

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the impact of the workshops organized during Neuroendocon 23 on the perspective and confidence of neurosurgeons toward endoscopy in a lower-middle income country.

METHODS

Neuroendocon 23 had cranial and spinal endoscopy cadaveric workshops with 30 delegates each. A pre and postworkshop survey was disseminated among the delegates, and statistical analysis was performed with SPSS (version 26) using P < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 24 delegates (40%) consented to participate in the study, with only 1 female respondent (4.17%). After the cranial endoscopy workshop, there was an increase in the level of confidence of delegates in cranial endoscopic approaches (P < 0.001). Similarly, after the spine endoscopy workshop, the respondents had increased confidence in managing spine conditions with the endoscopic approach (P = 0.040), to the extent that they preferred the endoscopic over the microsurgical technique (P < 0.001). All respondents (n = 24, 100%) believed that endoscopy should be promoted in lower-middle income countries and integrated into residency curricula.

CONCLUSIONS

Cranial and spinal endoscopy cadaveric workshops could be the first step in stimulating the interest of neurosurgeons in endoscopy.

Interventional Therapy and Surgical Management of Lumbar Disc Herniation in Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review

Significant advancements in lumbar disc herniation (LDH) management have been made in interventional pain therapy, operative therapy, peri-operative management, and cost analysis of various procedures. The present review aims to provide a concise narrative of all these topics, current trends, and possible future directions in the management of LDH. Interventional pain management using intradiscal injections often serves as a minimally invasive non-surgical approach. Surgical modalities vary, including traditional open laminectomy, microdiscectomy, endoscopic discectomy, tubular discectomy, percutaneous laser disc decompression, and transforaminal foraminotomy. Prevention of infections during surgery is paramount and is often done via a single-dose preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. Recurrence of LDH post-surgery is commonly observed and thus mitigative strategies for prevention have been proposed including the use of annular closure devices. Finally, all treatments are well-associated with clear as well as hidden costs to the health system and society as described by billing codes and loss of patients' quality-adjusted life-years. Our summary of recent literature regarding LDH may allow physicians to employ up-to-date evidence-based practice in clinical settings and can help drive future advancements in LDH management. Future longitudinal and comprehensive studies elucidating how each type of treatments fare against different types of herniations are warranted.

Outpatient Spine Procedures in Poland: Clinical Outcomes, Safety, Complications, and Technical Insights into an Ambulatory Spine Surgery Center

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of spine procedures performed in an ambulatory spine surgery unit in Poland.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 318 patients who underwent ambulatory spine surgery between 2018 and 2021, with procedures including microdiscectomy (MLD), anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), endoscopic interbody fusion (endoLIF), posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (PECD), interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy IELD, and transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD). Patient data were analyzed for pre-operative and post-operative visual analog scale (VAS) scores.

RESULTS

The findings indicated that outpatient techniques were safe and effective, with a 2.83% complication rate. All procedures significantly improved VAS scores under short-term observation, and core outcome measurement index (COMI) scores under long-term observation.

CONCLUSIONS

Ambulatory spine surgery represents a relatively new approach in Poland, with only a select few centers currently offering this type of service. Outpatient spine surgery is a safe, effective, and cost-effective option for patients requiring basic spine surgeries.

Endoscopic versus microscopic discectomy for pathologies of lumbar spine: A nationwide cross-sectional study from a lower-middle-income country

Objective

We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the preference of spine surgeons between MD for microdiscectomy and endoscopic discectomy (ED) surgery for the management of lumbar pathologies in a lower-middle-income country (LMIC).

Methodology

An online survey assessing the preference of spine surgeons for various lumbar pathologies was developed and disseminated in "Neurosurgery Cocktail" a social media platform. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software with a level of significance <0.05.

Results

We received responses from 160 spine surgeons having a median experience of 6.75 years (range 0-42 years) after residency. Most of the spine surgeons preferred MD over ED, preference being homogeneous across all lumbar pathologies. In ED, the interlaminar approach was preferred more frequently than the transforaminal approach. The most commonly chosen contraindication for the interlaminar approach and transforaminal approach was ≥ 3 levels lumbar disc herniation (LDH) (n = 117, 73.1%) and calcified LDH (n = 102, 63.8%), respectively. There was no significant association between the type of approach preferred (MD vs. ED; and interlaminar vs. translaminar endoscopic approach) with the type of workplace and the level of experience.

Conclusion

Spine surgeons were inclined toward MD over ED, due to various reasons, such as a steep learning curve, lack of training opportunities, and upfront expenses. There is a pressing need for the upliftment of ED in LMICs which requires global action.

A method for defining tissue injury criteria reveals that ligament deformation thresholds are multimodal

Soft tissue injuries (such as ligament, tendon, and meniscus tears) are the result of extracellular matrix damage from excessive tissue stretching. Deformation thresholds for soft tissues, however, remain largely unknown due to a lack of methods that can measure and compare the spatially heterogeneous damage and deformation that occurs in these materials. Here, we propose a full-field method for defining tissue injury criteria: multimodal strain limits for biological tissues analogous to yield criteria that exist for crystalline materials. Specifically, we developed a method for defining strain thresholds for mechanically-driven fibrillar collagen denaturation in soft tissues, using regional multimodal deformation and damage data. We established this new method using the murine medial collateral ligament (MCL) as our model tissue. Our findings revealed that multiple modes of deformation contribute to collagen denaturation in the murine MCL, contrary to the common assumption that collagen damage is driven only by strain in the direction of fibers. Remarkably, hydrostatic strain (computed here with an assumption of plane strain) was the best predictor of mechanically-driven collagen denaturation in ligament tissue, suggesting crosslink-mediated stress transfer plays a role in molecular damage accumulation. This work demonstrates that collagen denaturation can be driven by multiple modes of deformation and provides a method for defining deformation thresholds, or injury criteria, from spatially heterogeneous data. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Understanding the mechanics of soft tissue injuries is crucial for the development of new technology for injury detection, prevention, and treatment.  Yet, tissue-level deformation thresholds for injury are unknown, due to a lack of methods that combine full-field measurements of multimodal deformation and damage in mechanically loaded soft tissues. Here, we propose a method for defining tissue injury criteria: multimodal strain thresholds for biological tissues. Our findings reveal that multiple modes of deformation contribute to collagen denaturation, contrary to the common assumption that collagen damage is driven by strain in the fiber direction alone. The method will inform the development of new mechanics-based diagnostic imaging, improve computational modeling of injury, and be employed to study the role of tissue composition in injury susceptibility.

One-hole split endoscopy technique versus unilateral biportal endoscopy technique for L5-S1 lumbar disk herniation: analysis of clinical and radiologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

Lumbar disk herniation (LDH) is one of the most common diseases of the spine, especially occurring in L4-5 and L5-S1 intervertebral disks, and surgery is a choice when conservative treatment is ineffective. The purpose of this study is to investigate the clinical efficacy and radiologic outcomes of one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) technique versus unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique in the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disk herniation (LDH).

METHODS

A total of 133 patients of a single center surgically treated for L5-S1 LDH between 2019 and 2021 were retrospectively included in this study, of which 70 were treated by UBE technique and the rest were treated by OSE technique. Hospitalization time, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy times, incision length and related complications were recorded. Bone resection area (BRA), articular process resection rate, range of motion (ROM), sagittal translation (ST), disk height (DH), Visual Analog Score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Macnab criteria were used to evaluated the clinical efficacy.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in hospitalization time or fluoroscopy times between the two groups. The operation time was shorter in the UBE group than that in the OSE group; however, the incision length was longer. Intraoperative blood loss and BRA were larger in the UBE group than in the OSE group. There was no significant difference in ROM, ST, DH, or postoperative facet resection rate between the two groups. There was no significant difference in ROM, ST, or postoperative facet resection rate compared with preoperative indicators in each group, but there was a significant difference in DH among distinct groups. At any time point, the lower back and leg VAS and ODI in each group were significantly improved compared to those before the operation, with no significant difference between the two groups. There was one case of dural tear in the UBE group. One case of transient hypoesthesia occurred in each of the two groups. The excellent-good rates of the UBE group and the OSE group were 88.6% and 90.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The OSE technique is an effective minimally invasive surgical option as well as the UBE technique in the treatment of L5-S1 LDH.

Economic comparisons of endoscopic spine surgery: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Full-endoscopic techniques are minimally invasive surgery alternatives to traditional spinal surgery. We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess the costs of these techniques compared to traditional approaches.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed for economic evaluations that compare endoscopic decompressions of the lumbar spine for stenosis or disc herniation to open or microsurgical decompressions. The search was performed in the following databases: Medline, Embase Classic, Embase, and Central Cochrane library, from January 1, 2005, to October 22, 2022. The included studies were each evaluated according to a formal assessment checklist to evaluate the quality of economic evaluations based on 35 criteria.

RESULT

A total of 1153 studies were identified, with 9 articles included in the final analysis. In evaluating the quality of economic evaluations, the study with the fewest met criteria scored 9/35 and the study with the most met criteria scored 28/35. Only 3 studies completed cost-effectiveness analyses. Surgical procedure duration varied between studies, but hospital length of stays were consistently shorter with endoscopy. While endoscopy was more frequently associated with higher operating costs, studies that measured healthcare and societal costs found endoscopy to be advantageous.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic spine surgery was found to be cost-effective in treating patients with lumbar stenosis and disc herniation when compared to standard microscopic approaches from a societal perspective. More well-designed economic evaluations investigating the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic spine procedures are needed to further support these findings.

One-hole split endoscope technique for migrated lumbar disc herniation: a single-centre, retrospective study of a novel technique

BACKGROUND

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is one of the most common diseases of the spine, and migrated LDH is a more serious type, associated with nerve root function injury or abnormality. Regarding the increasing surgery adoption of treating migrated LDH, we aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of discectomy with a novel technique-one-hole split endoscope (OSE) technique.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of migrated LDH treated between December 2020 and September 2021. Hospitalization time, operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, number of fluoroscopy exposures, incision length, postoperative facet preservation rate, number of excellent-good cases, lower back and leg visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and surgical complications were compared between high-grade migration group (82 cases) and low-grade migration group (148 cases). The Macnab criteria was used to evaluate the clinical outcome. The Shapiro‒Wilk test was used to test measurement data, and the χ² test was used to test counting data.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in hospitalization time, operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, number of fluoroscopy exposures, incision length or postoperative facet preservation rate between the two groups by independent sample t test or nonparametric test. At any time point, the lower back and leg VAS and ODI of the two groups were significantly improved compared to those before the operation, but there was no significant difference between the two groups at the same time point by two-way repeated measures ANOVA. There were two cases of postoperative nerve root stimulation symptoms in the high-grade migration group and three cases in the low-grade migration group. There was one patient reoperated in the high-grade migration group. There was no significant difference in number of excellent-good cases between the two groups. The overall excellent-good rate was 89.6%.

CONCLUSION

The OSE technique has the advantages of less trauma, faster recovery, complete removal of the nucleus pulposus and a satisfactory early clinical efficacy in the treatment of migrated LDH.

Awake transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy in an ambulatory surgery center: early clinical outcomes and complications of 100 patients

PURPOSE

Transforaminal endoscopic discectomy has been found to have equivalent outcomes to traditional discectomy techniques. Controversy exists concerning whether this should be performed under general anesthetic with neuromonitoring or can be safely performed on awake patients without neuromonitoring. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of awake transforaminal endoscopic discectomy in an ambulatory setting.

METHODS

100 consecutive patients with lumbar disc herniations treated with transforaminal endoscopic discectomy by a single surgeon were enrolled in the study. All procedures were performed under conscious sedation with local anesthetic. Preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores were recorded and compared. Time spent in recovery prior to discharge home and complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

Average VAS score improved from a mean of 6.85 to 0.74 (median 7 to 0) immediately postoperatively. The average time spent in Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) prior to discharge was 56.7 min. Average VAS score at 2 weeks was 3.07 (median 2.5). Complication rates were commensurate with published results in the literature. The most common complication was radiculitis, which appears to be more likely with foraminal/extraforaminal herniations at a rate of 20.7%, versus 2.6% for central/paracentral herniations. There were no cases that required conversion to general anesthetic or transfer to a hospital and no permanent nerve injuries in this cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic discectomy can safely and successfully be performed in an ambulatory surgery center under conscious sedation and local anesthetic without neuromonitoring. This procedure leads to rapid recovery in the PACU and significantly improved VAS scores postoperatively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Cost-utility analysis of endoscopic lumbar discectomy following a uniform clinical pathway in the Korean national health insurance system

INTRODUCTION

Full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) is a type of minimally invasive spinal surgery for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Sufficient evidence exists to recommend FELD as an alternative to standard open microdiscectomy, and some patients prefer FELD due to its minimally invasive nature. However, in the Republic of Korea, the National Health Insurance System (NHIS) controls the reimbursement and use of supplies for FELD, but FELD is not currently reimbursed by the NHIS. Nonetheless, FELD has been performed upon patients' request, but providing FELD for patients' sake is inherently an unstable arrangement in the absence of a practical reimbursement system. The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis of FELD to suggest appropriate reimbursements.

METHOD

This study was a subgroup analysis of prospectively collected data including 28 patients who underwent FELD. All patients were NHIS beneficiaries and followed a uniform clinical pathway. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were assessed with a utility score using the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) instrument. The costs included direct medical costs incurred at the hospital for 2 years and the price of the electrode ($700), although it was not reimbursed. The costs and QALYs gained were used to calculate the cost per QALY gained.

RESULT

Patients' mean age was 43 years and one-third (32%) were women. L4-5 was the most common surgical level (20/28, 71%) and extrusion was the most common type of LDH (14, 50%). Half of the patients (15, 54%) had jobs with an intermediate level of activity. The preoperative EQ-5D utility score was 0.48±0.19. Pain, disability, and the utility score significantly improved starting 1 month postoperatively. The average EQ-5D utility score during 2 years after FELD was estimated as 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78-0.85). For 2 years, the mean direct costs were $3,459 and the cost per QALY gained was $5,241.

CONCLUSION

The cost-utility analysis showed a quite reasonable cost per QALY gained for FELD. A comprehensive range of surgical options should be provided to patients, for which a practical reimbursement system is a prerequisite.

Uniportal versus biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a comprehensive review

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic spine surgery techniques are minimally invasive alternatives to conventional open surgery for degenerative spinal diseases. Clinical studies and meta-analyses have proven the usefulness of uniportal full-endoscopic spine procedures. However, a steep learning curve is a critical barrier for endoscopic procedures. Recently, biportal endoscopic spine surgeries have been developed to make it easier for spine surgeons to learn and perform. Consequently, the biportal approach has gained popularity among aspiring endoscopic spine surgeons. This review compared the characteristics of uniportal and biportal surgeries to help spine surgeons perform endoscopic procedures more effectively.

AREA COVERED

The review analyzed English-language clinical literature in Core databases and compared uniportal and biportal endoscopic spine surgery techniques. Clinical studies have compared the technical principles of both techniques, and the authors suggested appropriate strategies for learning and practicing endoscopic procedures.

EXPERT OPINION

Uniportal, full-endoscopic spine surgery is a minimally invasive procedure that preserves muscles and uses a keyhole approach under local anesthesia. In contrast, biportal surgery is more familiar to a surgeon and can be performed more widely, although the keyhole approach is limited. Aspiring endoscopic spine surgeons can learn either method according to the surgeon's preference and the clinical situation.

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) is a novel and minimally invasive surgery for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). However, efficacy and safety of UBED compared to the conventional percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) remains to be determined. A meta-analysis was performed in this study to compare between UBED and PELD for LDH.

METHODS

Relevant cohort studies were found by searching Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Wanfang, and CNKI from database inception to October 13, 2022. Results were pooled using a random-effects model incorporating heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, 12 studies involving 1175 patients with LDH were included. Pooled results showed that compared with PELD, UBED was associated with a longer surgery time (mean difference [MD] 17.62 min, P < 0.001) and hospital stay (MD 1.40 day, P = 0.04). However, UBED and PELD showed comparative efficacies in improving the Visual Analogue Scale of leg and back, and Oswestry Disability Index, scores. The incidence of perioperative complications was not significantly different between the 2 procedures (risk ratio [RR] 1.62, P = 0.25), while UBED was associated with a lower LDH recurrence during follow-up (RR 0.29, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Although UBED is associated with longer surgery time and hospital stay, it shows similar efficacy to PELD in relieving pain and improving functional ability in patients with LDH. In addition, limited evidence suggests that UBED may be associated with a lower LDH recurrence as compared to PELD, while the incidence of perioperative complications is not different. These findings support UBED as a treatment for patients with LDH.

Methodology of economic evaluations in spine surgery: a systematic review and qualitative assessment

OBJECTIVES

The present study is a systematic review conducted as part of a methodological approach to develop evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the methodology and quality of currently available clinical cost-effectiveness studies in spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit and The National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database were searched through 8 December 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Studies were included if they met all of the following eligibility criteria: (1) spine surgery, (2) the study cost-effectiveness and (3) clinical study. Model-based studies were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The following data items were extracted and evaluated: pathology, number of participants, intervention(s), year, country, study design, time horizon, comparator(s), utility measurement, effectivity measurement, costs measured, perspective, main result and study quality.

RESULTS

130 economic evaluations were included. Seventy-four of these studies were retrospective studies. The majority of the studies had a time horizon shorter than 2 years. Utility measures varied between the EuroQol 5 dimensions and variations of the Short-Form Health Survey. Effect measures varied widely between Visual Analogue Scale for pain, Neck Disability Index, Oswestry Disability Index, reoperation rates and adverse events. All studies included direct costs from a healthcare perspective. Indirect costs were included in 47 studies. Total Consensus Health Economic Criteria scores ranged from 2 to 18, with a mean score of 12.0 over all 130 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery is extremely low due to different study designs, follow-up duration and outcome measurements such as utility, effectiveness and costs. This illustrates the need for uniformity in conducting and reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery.

Transforaminal Versus Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis and systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate and compare patient-reported outcomes, perioperative data, and complications between 2 common endoscopic approaches for lumbar disc herniation: transforaminal and interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy, by published high-quality evidence.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for reported outcomes following TELD and IELD. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale of back (VASB) and leg pain (VASL), and MacNab criteria were evaluated. Operative time, hospital stays, blood loss, radiation exposure, and complications were investigated. Odds ratio (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random and fixed-effect models.

RESULTS

Total of 1948 patients from 18 studies were included, consisting of 1006 patients (51.6%) in TELD group and 942 (48.4%) patients in IELD group. TELD had better improvement of postoperative ODI (MD = 1.26; 95% CI: .07-2.16; P = .04), postoperative VASB (MD = -.23; 95% CI: -.40 to -.05; P = .01) and last follow-up VASB (MD = -.25; 95% CI: -.41 to -.09; P = .002), but with longer operative time (MD = 10.1 min; 95% CI: 1.925-18.77; P < .00001) and more fluoroscopic time (SMD = 4.12; 95% CI: 3.22-5.03; P < .00001), especially in L5-S1 operation. Bed rest time was significantly longer following IELD, with no difference in VASL, hospital stays, or complication.

CONCLUSION

We found comparable clinical outcomes in terms of ODI, VAS, patient satisfaction, hospital stays, and complication between both techniques. TELD required more radiation exposure and longer operative time at L5-S1 level than IELD. Our study provided results to help consider appropriate approaches for selected patients and informed consent of benefits from each approach.

A method for defining tissue injury criteria reveals ligament deformation thresholds are multimodal

Soft tissue injuries (such as ligament, tendon, and meniscus tears) are the result of extracellular matrix damage from excessive tissue stretching. Deformation thresholds for soft tissues, however, remain largely unknown due to a lack of methods that can measure and compare the spatially heterogeneous damage and deformation that occurs in these materials. Here, we propose a method for defining tissue injury criteria : multimodal strain limits for biological tissues analogous to yield criteria that exist for crystalline materials. Specifically, we developed a method for defining injury criteria for mechanically-driven fibrillar collagen denaturation in soft tissues, using regional multimodal deformation and damage data. We established this new method using the murine medial collateral ligament (MCL) as our model tissue. Our findings revealed that multiple modes of deformation contribute to collagen denaturation in the murine MCL, contrary to the common assumption that collagen damage is driven by strain in the fiber direction alone. Remarkably, our results indicated that hydrostatic strain, or volumetric expansion, may be the best predictor of mechanically-driven collagen denaturation in ligament tissue, suggesting crosslink-mediated stress transfer plays a role in molecular damage accumulation. This work demonstrates that collagen denaturation can be driven by multiple modes of deformation and provides a method for defining deformation thresholds, or injury criteria, from spatially heterogeneous data.

Full-endoscopic versus microscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis at L4-L5: comparative study

PURPOSE

Full-endoscopic spine surgery for degenerative lumbar diseases is growing in popularity and has shown favourable outcomes. Lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD) has been used to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, studies comparing LE-ULBD to microscopic ULBD are lacking. This study compared the clinical efficacy and radiological outcomes between the LE-ULBD and microscopic ULBD.

METHODS

The study retrospectively enrolled patients undergoing either LE-ULBD or microscopic ULBD for spinal stenosis at the L4-L5 level. The demographic data, operative details, radiological images, clinical outcomes, and complications of patients from the two groups were compared through matched-pairs analysis. The minimum follow-up duration was 24 months.

RESULTS

There were 93 patients undergoing either LE-ULBD (n = 42) or microscopic ULBD (n = 51). The patient demographics were similar between the two groups. The LE-ULBD group had significantly less estimated blood loss, less analgesic use, and shorter hospitalization duration (P < .05). The endoscopic group had a significantly lower visual analog scale for back pain at all follow-up intervals compared with the microscopic group (P < .05). There were no significant differences in leg pain or Oswestry Disability Index. The cross-section area of the spinal canal was significantly wider after microscopic ULBD. There were no significant differences in post-operative degenerative changes in disc height, translational motion, or facet preservation rate.

CONCLUSIONS

LE-ULBD is comparable in clinical and radiological outcomes with enhanced recovery for single-level LSS. The endoscopic approach might further minimize tissue injury and enhance post-operative recovery.

[Research progress of unilateral biportal endoscopy technique in treatment of lumbar related diseases]

Objective

To review the application and research progress of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique in the treatment of lumbar related diseases.

Methods

The domestic and foreign literature on the application of UBE technique in the treatment of lumbar related diseases was extensively consulted, and the development history, clinical application, operation points and precautions, related complications and adverse reactions, advantages and disadvantages of the technique were reviewed.

Results

As a minimally invasive technique developed in recent years, UBE technique is effective in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis caused by different causes, with satisfactory decompression effect, less damage, and good lumbar stability. UBE technique has significant advantages over open surgery and microscopy-assisted surgery in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. In the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis, the postoperative trauma of UBE technique is less than that of conventional surgery, and the fusion rate is satisfactory. There are also complications such as spinal cord injury, spinal epidural hematoma, incomplete decompression or recurrence, nerve root irritation symptoms, and postoperative infection in the treatment of lumbar related diseases with UBE technique. Detailed preoperative planning is essential for patients with lumbar related diseases who are suitable for UBE surgery.

Conclusion

UBE technique is easy to operate, has a gentle learning curve, can use conventional instruments, and has definite effectiveness. It is suitable for a variety of lumbar related diseases, but there are some defects and deficiencies.

Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to analyze unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched online. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA 16.0.

RESULTS

The selection criteria were met by 6 studies with a total of 281 patients (142 cases in the UBE group and 139 cases in the PELD group) and good methodological quality. PELD has the potential to improve outcomes such as operation time and intraoperative hemorrhage (MD = 36.808, 95% CI (23.766, 49.850), P = .000; MD = 59.269, 95% CI (21.527, 97.010), P = .000) compared with UBE. No differences were found in the back pain VAS score at preoperative (MD = -0.024, 95% CI [-0.572, 0.092], P = .998), at 1 day after operation (MD = -0.300, 95% CI [-0.845, 0.246], P = .878), the VAS score of leg pain at preoperative (MD = -0.099, 95% CI [-0.417, 0.220], P = .762), at 1 day after operation (MD = 0.843, 95% CI [0.193, 1.492], P = .420), at 1 month after operation (MD = -0.027, 95% CI [-0.433, 0.380], P = .386), at 6 months after operation (MD = 0.122, 95% CI [-0.035, 0.278], P = .946), hospital stay (MD = 3.708, 95% CI [3.202, 4.214], P = .000) and other clinical effects between UBE and PELD group.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no significant differences in clinical efficacy between UBE and PELD, according to the research. However, PELD has the potential to improve outcomes such as operation time and intraoperative hemorrhage. As just a result, PELD is better suited in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Microendoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

In minimally invasive spinal surgery, the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with microendoscopic discectomy (MED) or unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) shows effective results, but which is more effective is controversial. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UBED versus MED in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by a systematic review and meta-analysis, so as to provide reference for the promotion of UBED in clinical practice.

Methods

The multiple databases like PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Databases, Chinese BioMedical Database, and Wanfang Database were used to search for the relevant studies. Review Manager 5.4 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among selected articles. Odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate the overall pooled effect. Subgroup analysis, forest plots, funnel plots and Egger's test for the articles included were also conducted.

Results

Three randomized clinical trials and seven cohort studies were finally retrieved, these studies included 685 and 829 patients in the UBED and MED groups, respectively. There were no differences in terms of operation time (MD = -0.92, P =0.72), estimated blood loss (MD = -26.31, P =0.08), complications (MD =0.81, P =0.38) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (P >0.05 in four subgroup) between the two groups. The visual analog scale (VAS) score of back pain in the UBED group was better than MED group only at 6 months (MD = -0.23, P =0.006) after operation, the VAS score of leg pain in the UBED group was better than that of MED group at 3 mouths (MD = -0.22, P =0.002) and 6 months (MD = -0.24, P =0.006) after operation, the UBED group had a less postoperative length of stay than the MED group (MD = -1.85, P <0.001). The bias analysis showed that there was no potential publication bias in the included literature.

Conclusion

This study showed that compared with MED, UBED has the advantages of short hospital stay and good short-term curative effect, but there is no significant difference in long-term efficacy and safety, they can be replaced by each other in clinical application.

Cave-in Decompression Technique in Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy for Ossification Occupation in Lumbar Spinal Canal: A retrospective analysis of 23 cases

OBJECT

Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) for the treatment of ossification occupation of the lumbar spinal canal is technically demanding. The purpose of this study was to describe an endoscopic cave-in decompression technique in PETD for ossification occupation of the lumbar spinal canal and to report the clinical results.

METHODS

From May 2018 to June 2020, 23 consecutive cases, diagnosed in our institution as ventral ossification in the lumbar spinal canal and treated with PETD, were evaluated. The endoscopic cave-in decompression technique was performed. We analyzed the clinical outcomes on a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Perioperative data and complications rate were also recorded.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 15.7 ± 2.8 months. Mean preoperative VAS score for low-back pain was 5.65 ± 1.43, and decreased to 0.57 ± 0.5 at final follow-up. Mean preoperative VAS score for leg pain was 5.48 ± 1.38, and decreased to 0.56 ± 0.5 at final follow-up. Mean preoperative ODI score decreased from 33.04 ± 5.28 preoperatively to 8.7 ± 2.54 at last follow-up. One patient experienced transient postoperative hypoesthesia, and 1 developed a mild transient decline in muscle strength; both recovered progressively. Postoperative CT and MRI showed that the ossification was effectively removed and the nerve root and dural mater was completely decompressed in all cases.

CONCLUSION

The endoscopic cave-in decompression technique in PETD is a safe and effective treatment method for selected patients with ossification occupation of the lumbar spinal canal.

Comparative study of the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive interlaminar full-endoscopic discectomy versus conventional microscopic discectomy in single-level lumbar herniated intervertebral disc (ENDO-F Trial): a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial protocol

Background

Advances in minimally invasive surgery have expanded the indications for interlaminar full-endoscopic discectomy. Although the clinical outcomes for this approach may be equivalent to those of conventional microscopic discectomy, the supporting evidence is still based on small, single-center, prospective, and retrospective studies. Therefore, a multicenter randomized controlled trial is warranted.

Methods

This will be a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy and safety of interlaminar full-endoscopic discectomy to those of conventional microscopic discectomy. The trial will enroll 100 participants with a lumbar disc herniation, 50 in each group. The primary outcome will be the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 12 months post-surgery. Secondary outcomes will be back and leg pain (visual analog scale); the ODI; the EuroQol-5-dimension score; patient satisfaction; and walking distance/time and time to return to daily activities post-surgery. Surgical outcomes will include postoperative drainage, operative time, duration of hospital stay, postoperative creatine kinase level as an indicator of muscle injury, and postoperative scarring. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and simple radiography will be performed to evaluate radiographic outcomes between the two surgical approaches. Surgery-related complications and adverse effects will be evaluated as safety outcomes. A single assessor at each participating hospital, blinded to group allocation, will assess the enrolled participants at baseline, at 2 weeks, and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.

Discussion

This trial is designed to determine whether interlaminar full-endoscopic discectomy is clinically comparable to microscopic discectomy to treat lumbar disc herniations. All efforts will be made to reduce bias, including adequate sample size, blinded analyses, and multicenter prospective registration. The outcomes will inform practice, providing the evidence needed for using interlaminar full-endoscopic over microscopic discectomy by confirming the potential of this technique to improve patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes.

Trial registration: Clinical Research Information Service; cris.nih.go.kr. (KCT0006277); protocol version (v1, June 8, 2021).

Surgeons’ Perspective, Learning Curve, Motivation, and Obstacles of Full-Endoscopic Spine Surgery in Thailand: Results From A Nationwide Survey

Objective

To report a nationwide survey of the endoscopic spine surgeons across Thailand. Furthermore, the survey will be focused on the perspective of experience, learning curve, motivations, and obstacles at the beginning of their practices.

Materials and Methods

The online survey consisting of 16 items was distributed to spine surgeons who are performing endoscopic spine surgery in Thailand via the Google forms web-based questionnaire to investigate participants' demographics, backgrounds, experience in endoscopic spine surgery, motivations, obstacles, and future perspectives. The data was recorded from January 7, 2020 to January 21, 2022. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis.

Results

A total of 42 surveys were submitted by 6 neurosurgeons (14.3%) and 36 orthopedic surgeons (85.7%). From the surgeons' perspective, the average number of cases that should be performed until one feels confident, consistently good outcomes, and has minimal complications was 27.44 ± 32.46 cases. For surgeons who starting the endoscopic spine practice, at least 3 workshop participation is needed. Personal interest (39 selected responses) and trending marketing or business purpose (25 selected responses) were the primary motivators for endoscopic spine surgery implementation. Lack of support (18 selected responses) and afraid of complications (16 selected responses) were pertinent obstacles to endoscopic spine surgery implementation.

Conclusions

The trend of endoscopic spine surgery has continued to grow in Thailand, shown by the rate of implementation of endoscopic spine surgery reported by Thai spine surgeons. The number of appropriate cases until one feels confident was around 28 cases. The primary motivator and obstacles were personal interest and lack of support.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive biportal endoscopic spine surgery versus conventional microscopic discectomy in single-level lumbar herniated intervertebral disc (ENDO-BH Trial): a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled equivalence trial study protocol

Background

Biportal endoscopic surgery has recently been performed in lumbar discectomy, with advantages over conventional surgery, such as less skin scarring and muscle damage. However, the clinical results have not been established. Although previous studies reported no difference between the biportal endoscopic and microscopic discectomy clinical results, the evidence was weak. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the biportal endoscopic discectomy versus the microscopic discectomy.

Methods

This prospective multicenter randomized controlled equivalence trial is designed to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of patients who underwent lumbar discectomy using biportal endoscopy or microscopy. We will include 100 participants (50 per group) with a lumbar herniated disc. The primary outcome will be the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score 12 months after surgery based on a modified intention-to-treat strategy. The secondary outcomes will include the visual analog scale score for low back and lower extremity radiating pain, the ODI score, the Euro-Qol-5-Dimensions score, surgery satisfaction, walking time, postoperative return to daily life period, postoperative surgical scar, and surgery-related variables, such as postoperative drainage, operation time, admission duration, postoperative creatine kinase, and implementation status of conversion to open surgery. Radiographic outcomes will also be analyzed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) and simple radiographs. Safety will be assessed by evaluating all adverse and severe adverse events and surgery-related effects. The participants will be assessed by a blinded assessor before surgery (baseline) and 2 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.

Discussion

This trial will be the first prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to analyze the efficacy and safety of biportal endoscopic discectomy in lumbar herniated disc.

This trial is designed for evaluating the equivalence of the results between biportal endoscopic and microscopic discectomy including adequate sample size, blinded analyses, and prospective registration to reduce bias. This trial will provide enough data on the effectiveness and safety of biportal endoscopic surgery and will be an important study that allows clear conclusions.

Trial registration

Clinical Research Information Service (cris.nih.go.kr.) (KCT0006191). Registered on 27 March 2021

Cost-effectiveness of full endoscopic versus open discectomy for sciatica

OBJECTIVE

To assess the costs and cost-effectiveness of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) compared with open microdiscectomy among patients with sciatica.

METHODS

This economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 12-month multicentre randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design, in which patients were randomised to PTED or open microdiscectomy. Patients were aged from 18 to 70 years and had at least 6 weeks of radiating leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation. Effect measures included leg pain and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), as derived using the EQ-5D-5L. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Missing data were multiply imputed, bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty, and various sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the robustness.

RESULTS

Of the 613 patients enrolled, 304 were randomised to PTED and 309 to open microdiscectomy. Statistically significant differences in leg pain and QALYs were found in favour of PTED at 12 months follow-up (leg pain: 6.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 12.6; QALYs: 0.040; 95% CI 0.007 to 0.074). Surgery costs were higher for PTED than for open microdiscectomy (ie, €4500/patient vs €4095/patient). All other disaggregate costs as well as total societal costs were lower for PTED than for open microdiscectomy. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that the probability of PTED being less costly and more effective (ie, dominant) compared with open microdiscectomy was 99.4% for leg pain and 99.2% for QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that PTED is more cost-effective from the societal perspective compared with open microdiscectomy for patients with sciatica.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02602093.

Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of Full-Endoscopic Visualized Foraminoplasty and Discectomy Versus Microdiscectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective case-control study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of full-endoscopic visualized foraminoplasty and discectomy (FEVFD) with microdiscectomy (MD) for lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

METHODS

Data from 198 patients who presented with LDH between January 2016 and December 2017 treated by either FEVFD or MD were retrospectively analyzed. The inclusion criteria were single-level LDH, unilateral radiating leg pain with or without positive Lasegue's sign, and failure of standard conservative treatment for at least 12 weeks. The patients were categorized into an FEVFD group (n = 102) or an MD group (n = 96), according to the surgical procedure performed. Operative time, time in bed after surgery, postoperative hospitalization time, complications, and reoperations were recorded. Visual analog scales (VAS) for leg and back pain, Oswestry Disability index (ODI), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey physical function (SF36-PF), and bodily pain (SF36-BP) scores were assessed and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The demographic data and baseline characteristics of the two groups were not significantly different. Operative time for the FEVFD group (73.82 ± 20.73 min) was longer than that for the MD group (64.74 ± 17.37 min) (P = 0.003), and fluoroscopy time for the FEVFD group (1.71 ± 0.58s) was longer than that for the MD group (1.30 ± 0.33s) (P < 0.001). However, time in bed experienced in the FEVFD group (8.51 ± 2.10 h) was less than that in the MD group (9.24 ± 2.01 h) (P = 0.014), and postoperative hospitalization time experienced in the FEVFD group (2.89 ± 0.83d) was also shorter than that in the MD group (4.94 ± 1.35d) (P < 0.001). All patients completed 24 months of follow-up. Postoperative scores at each follow-up for the VAS for leg and back pain, ODI, SF36-PF, and SF36-BP all improved significantly for both groups, as compared to the preoperative data (P < 0.05). The mean preoperative and postoperative scores for the VAS for leg and back pain, ODI, SF36-PF, and SF36-BP were not significantly different between the two groups. According to the modified MacNab criteria, the outcomes of the procedures were rated as excellent or good by 92.16% and 93.75% of the patients in the FEVFD and MD groups, respectively. One patient suffered a nerve root injury during the discectomy, one patient suffered from a dural tear, and two patients suffered from a residual herniation in the FEVFD group. One patient in the MD group suffered from poor wound healing. Moreover, recurrence happened in two cases in the FEVFD group, and in one case in the MD group.

CONCLUSION

FEVFD and MD are both reliable techniques for the treatment of symptomatic LDH. FEVFD resulted in a more rapid recovery and equivalent clinical outcomes after 24 months of follow-up.

PAIN INTENSITY AND FUNCTIONALITY AFTER PERCUTANEOUS ENDOSCOPIC DISCECTOMY: A RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

ABSTRACT Objectives To evaluate pain intensity and functional status before and 30 days following percutaneous lumbar endoscopic discectomy. Methods A retrospective cohort study that included patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic discectomy from January 2019 to October 2020 at the Irmandade Santa Casa de Misericórdia Hospital, in Porto Alegre. The data were collected from the electronic medical records of the patients by two independent physicians. Clinical outcomes were assessed using visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Results Forty-six patients with a mean age of 52.6 ± 15.8 years, 27 of whom (58.7%) were male, were evaluated. Regarding clinical outcomes, a statistically significant improvement was observed in the comparison between the pre- and 30-day postoperative VAS and ODI scores, with no significant difference in relation to sex. No peri- or postoperative complications were observed. All patients successfully completed surgery and were discharged after recovery from anesthesia. Conclusion There was a significant improvement in pain and functional status 30 days after percutaneous endoscopic discectomy performed to correct lumbar disc herniation, with no difference in relation to sex. In addition, no peri- or postoperative complications were observed. Future studies, with longer follow-up times, comparing clinical outcomes from the various techniques of percutaneous endoscopic discectomy are necessary. Level of evidence III; Retrospective comparative study.

Is Less Really More? Economic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Review.

OBJECTIVE

A comparative overview of cost-effectiveness between minimally invasive versus and equivalent open spinal surgeries.

METHODS

A literature search using PubMed was performed to identify articles of interest. To maximize the capture of studies in our initial search, we combined variants of the terms "cost," "minimally invasive," "spine," "spinal fusion," "decompression" as either keywords or MeSH terms. PearlDiver database was queried for open and minimally invasive surgery (MIS; endoscopic or percutaneous) reimbursements between Q3 2015 and Q2 2018.

RESULTS

In general, MIS techniques appeared to decrease blood loss, shorten hospital lengths of stay, mitigate complications, decrease perioperative pain, and enable quicker return to daily activities when compared to equivalent open surgical techniques. With regard to cost, primarily as a result of these latter benefits, MIS was associated with lower costs of care when compared to equivalent open techniques. However, cost reporting was sparse, and relevant methodology was inconsistent throughout the spine literature. Within the PearlDiver data sets, MIS approaches had lower reimbursements than open approaches for both lumbar posterior fusion and discectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Current data suggests that overall cost-savings may be incurred with use of MIS techniques. However, data reporting on costs lacks in uniformity, making it difficult to formulate any firm conclusions regarding any incremental improvements in cost-effectiveness that may be incurred when utilizing MIS techniques when compared to equivalent open techniques.

Cost effectiveness of outpatient lumbar discectomy

Background

Microdiscectomy is the most commonly performed spine surgery and the first transitioning for outpatient settings. However, this transition was never studied, in what comes to cost-utility assessment. Accordingly, this economic study aims to access the cost-effectiveness of outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy when compared with the inpatient procedure.

Methods

This is a cost utility study, adopting the hospital perspective. Direct medical costs were retrieved from the assessment of 20 patients undergoing outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy and 20 undergoing inpatient lumbar microdiscectomy Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated from Oswestry Disability Index values (ODI). ODI was prospectively assessed in outpatients in pre and 3- and 6-month post-operative evaluations. Inpatient ODI data were estimated from a meta-analysis. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) calculated.

Results

Outpatient procedure was cost-saving in all models tested. At 3-month assessment ICER ranged from €135,753 to €345,755/QALY, higher than the predefined threshold of €60,000/QALY gained. At 6-month costs were lower and utilities were higher in outpatient, overpowering the inpatient procedure. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that in 65% to 73% of simulations outpatient was the better option. The savings with outpatient were about 55% of inpatient values, with similar utility scores. No 30-day readmissions were recorded in either group.

Conclusion

This is the first economic study on cost-effectiveness of outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy, showing a significant reduction in costs, with a similar clinical outcome, proving it cost-effective.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-021-00272-w.

SURGERY FOR LUMBAR DISC HERNIATION: OPEN X MINIMALLY INVASIVE TECHNIQUE

ABSTRACT Objective: In Brazil, there are no studies comparing endoscopic treatment of lumbar disc herniation with the conventional open technique in SUS (Unified Health System) with regard to hospitalization time and complications occurring within one year, which is the objective of this study. Methods: A survey of 32 surgeries performed in 2019 (11 open and 21 endoscopic) to evaluate pain parameters before and after surgery (VAS), days of hospitalization, and complications. The data were submitted to statistical analysis (ANOVA) using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: Fourteen patients were female and eighteen were male, with a mean age of 41.35 years (p> 0.05 between sexes). The pre- and postoperative VAS for pain radiating to the lower limb were similar between the groups: 8.5 ± 0.82 with the open technique and 8.19 ± 1.15 with endoscopic technique. In both groups there was an improvement in the pain pattern with a significant reduction in the VAS (p < 0.05) and there was no statistical relevance between the groups in terms of pain improvement. There was statistical relevance between the groups in the comparison of days of hospitalization required, with the group submitted to endoscopic surgery having a lower number of days. The complications reported were compatible with those found in the literature (postoperative dysesthesia, new herniation). Conclusions: The endoscopic technique resulted in an important reduction in the number of days of hospitalization, a factor with a high impact on the costs of any surgical procedure, which can be a determining factor in the feasibility of minimally invasive techniques. Level of evidence IV; Therapeutic Study.

Learning curve of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar discectomy by a single surgeon

To evaluate the learning curve of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar discectomy (PETLD) from the novice stage to the proficient stage, we performed retrospective study for patients with lumbar disc herniation who underwent PETLD performed by a single surgeon and evaluated the surgeon's learning curve and the effect of surgical proficiency on outcomes.A total of 48 patients who underwent PETLD at the lower lumbar level (L3-S1) with a minimum 1-year follow-up were enrolled. The learning curve of the surgeon was assessed using cumulative study of operation time and linear regression analyses to reveal the correlation between operation time and case series number.Because the cutoff of familiarity was 25 cases according to the cumulative study of operation time, the patients were allocated into two groups: early group (n = 25) and late group (n = 23). The clinical, surgical, and radiological outcomes were retrospectively evaluated and compared between the two groups.According to linear regression analyses, the operation time was obtained using the following formula: operation time (minutes) = 69.925-(0.503 × [case number]) (P < .001).As expected, the operation time was significantly different between the two groups (mean 66.00 ± 11.37 min in the early group vs 50.43 ± 7.52 min in the late group, P < .001). No differences were found between the two groups in demographic data and baseline characteristics. Almost all clinical outcomes (including pain improvement and patient satisfaction), surgical outcomes (including failure, recurrence, and additional procedure rates), and radiological outcomes (including change of disc height and sagittal angles) did not differ between the two groups.However, the late group demonstrated a more favorable postoperative volume index of the remnant disc (362.91 mm3 [95% confidence interval, 272.81-453.02] in the early group vs 161.14 mm3 [95% confidence interval, 124.31-197.97] in the late group, P < .001), and a lower complication rate related to exiting nerve root (16.0% in the early group vs 0% in the late group, P = .045).The learning curve of PETLD is not as difficult as that of other minimally invasive spine surgery technique. Although the overall outcomes were not different between the groups, the risks of incomplete decompression and exiting root injury-related complication were higher in the novice stage.

Evaluation of efficacy and safety of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery (PTES) for surgical treatment of calcified lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective cohort study of 101 patients

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopy has been widely used to treat lumbar disc herniation (LDH), but the steep learning curve and difficulties in removing the calcified disc hinders the application of conventional endoscopy in treating calcified lumbar disc herniation (CLDH). In 2017, we first reported Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Surgery (PTES) as an easy-to-learn posterolateral transforaminal endoscopic technique to decompress the nerve root for LDH. We used our PTES technique to remove the calcified LDH and the purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this technique.

METHODS

Forty-six patients with CLDH and fifty-five patients with uncalcified lumbar disc herniation (ULDH) underwent PTES to decompress the nerve root. Visual analogue scale was collected before the surgery, immediately, one week, one month, two months, three months, six months, 12 months and 24 months after surgery. The outcomes of MacNab classification were collected 24 months after surgery. Intra- and Post-operative complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

For CLDH patients, the VAS score was 9 (5-10) before operation, and then dropped to 2 (1-4) after surgery. VAS score continually decreased to 0 (0-3) at 24 months after surgery. 95.65% of CLDH patients showed excellent or good outcomes. ULDH group showed similar MacNab classification (94.55%) and VAS changing curve. The therapeutic effect of PTES in treating CLDH was as good as that in treating uncalcified patients.

CONCLUSIONS

PTES is an effective and safe method to treat calcified lumbar disc herniation.

Early Career Challenges in Setting Up an Endoscopic Spine Surgery Practice

After the completion of an endoscopic spinal surgery fellowship, the next challenge for the newly minted consultant is to set up a viable and sustainable endoscopic practice. A successful practice of endoscopic spine surgery is dependent on several factors, such as anesthetic support; surgical expertise; support for provision and maintenance of endoscopic equipment; cost of equipment; administrative and nursing support; postoperative care services to optimize patients' outcome and satisfaction; patients' ideas, concerns, and expectations, as well as continuing medical education. In this article, a perspective is given on the early career challenges that a fellowship-trained endoscopic surgeon may encounter in the period leading to first successful endoscopic spinal surgery.

A Narrative Review of Development of Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Spine Surgery

In the first phase of development of lumbar endoscopic spine surgery, the focus was on removal of soft disc material through the working corridor of Kambin’s triangle using transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy. With the introduction of the interlaminar approach and increased interest from both industry and surgeons, there has been an exponential development of endoscopic surgical equipment and a corresponding expansion of endoscopic techniques. Endoscopic treatment strategies are applied to conditions ranging from contained prolapsed intervertebral discs to noncontained migrated herniated discs, hard calcified discs, spinal stenosis in the central or lateral recess and the foraminal and extraforaminal region, and other combinations of degenerative conditions requiring decompression or fusion surgery. The further expansion of endoscopic surgical management involving complicated spinal cases and the final quartet of trauma, infections, tumors, and possibly deformities could be the future stage of endoscopic spine surgery development. This article covers the full range of current treatment strategies and presents possible future developments of endoscopic spine surgery for the management of lumbar spinal conditions.

Learning curve of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy versus open lumbar microdiscectomy at the L5-S1 level

Objective

Many studies on the clinical outcome of full endoscopic spine surgery versus open spine surgery have been published. However, only a few studies have compared the learning curves of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy (PEILD) and open lumbar microdiscectomy (OLM) at the L5–S1 level. This study included patients with disc herniation at the L5–S1 level, who underwent PEILD or OLM performed by a single novice surgeon and compared the learning curves.

Methods

Fifty-six patients who underwent PEILD or OLM at the L5–S1 level and completed a minimum 1-year follow-up were enrolled in the study. The patients were allocated to the PEILD group (n = 27, September 2014 to August 2016) or an OLM group (n = 29, September 2012 to August 2014). The learning curves were retrospectively compared based on operation time and surgical outcomes, including complication, failure, and recurrence rates were retrospectively compared.

Results

Significant intergroup differences were not noted with respect to the baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index, preoperative symptoms, or preoperative radiological findings. The mean operation time was significantly shorter in the PEILD group than in the OLM group (63.89±17.99 min versus 78.03±19.01 min, p = 0.006). Based on the operation time according to the number of cases, the learning curve was more difficult in the PEILD group according to the cumulative analysis (case number cut-off for proficiency was 18 in the PEILD group versus 10 in the OLM group) and linear regression analysis (proportionality constant for decrease in the operation time was -0.922 in the PEILD group versus -1.738 in the OLM group) than that in the OLM group. However, the surgical outcomes, including failure, surgical efficacy based on nerve root decompression, complication, and recurrence rates did not differ between the two groups.

Conclusion

Although the learning curve of PEILD was more difficult than that of OLM, the mean operation time was shorter in the PEILD group than that in the OLM group. Moreover, based on the surgical outcomes, PEILD showed efficacy and safety similar to those of OLM.

Estimation and influence of blood loss under endoscope for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD): a clinical observational study combined with in vitro experiment

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to come up with new methods to quantitate the blood loss under endoscope and explore the influence of blood loss on percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD).

METHODS

Clinical research and in vitro experiment are combined. In the in vitro experiment, 2.0-ml blood was diluted in different ratio to simulate the rinse solution of PELD, the hematocrit method (HCT-M) and red blood cell count method (RBC-M) were came up to estimate blood loss and the new methods were calibrated with the direct measurement method (Direct-M). In clinical research, 74 patients with L5/S1 disk herniation were treated with PELD, and HCT-M and the empirical method (EMP-M) were used to estimate the blood loss under endoscope. According to blood loss, all patients were divided into group A (≤ 10 ml) and group B (> 10 ml). The blood loss, operation time, fluoroscopy frequency, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In the in vitro experiment, the hematocrit of the rinse solution was always stable over time. The estimated blood loss by HCT-M was stable and quite approximate to actual blood volume (2.0 ml) whatever the blood dilution ratio, while according to RBC-M, the estimated blood loss was close to the actual blood volume only when the dilution ratio was greater than 300 times. In clinical research, the blood loss estimated by HCT-M was higher than that by EMP-M in both groups (P < 0.05). There was a significant difference between group A and group B in blood loss (7.40 ± 1.61 vs 19.91 ± 10.94 ml), operation time (80.51 ± 34.70 vs 136.51 ± 41.88 min), and fluoroscopy frequency (6.92 ± 1.52 vs 11.11 ± 2.32 times) (P < 0.05). The VAS and ODI scores in group B were higher than that in group A 1 week after operation (P < 0.05); however, the scores were not different between the two groups at pre-operation (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

HCT-M is a reliable method to estimate endoscopic blood loss in PELD. The amount of endoscopic blood loss affects the operative procedure in operation time and fluoroscopy frequency, as well as clinical effects in VAS and ODI scores after operation in short term.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Versus Microdiscectomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: Pain, Disability, and Complication Rate-A Randomized Clinical Trial

Purpose

The objective was to compare the traditional microdiscectomy with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for the treatment of disc herniations regarding pain, disability, and complications.

Methods

Randomized clinical trial with 47 patients with disc herniations treated with 2 different surgical techniques: traditional microdiscectomy or percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Forty-seven patients were divided into 2 groups and monitored for 12 months. Irradiated and low back pain were evaluated with the visual analog scale. Surgery complications were recorded.

Results

After surgery, the sciatica and disability improved significantly but without significant differences between the groups. Improvements in back pain were significant until the third month. There were no statistical differences between groups regarding recurrence, infection, and the need for reoperation.

Conclusions

Endoscopic discectomy results are similar to those of conventional microdiscectomy regarding pain and disability improvement. Postoperative lumbar pain is less intense with endoscopic discectomy than conventional microdiscectomy only during the first 3 months. Endoscopic discectomy is a safe and efficient alternative to microdiscectomy.

Clinical Trials

Trial protocol registration number: RBR-5symrd (http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br).