Comparison of the Outcomes of Microendoscopic Discectomy Versus Full-Endoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of L4/5 Lumbar Disc Herniation

A novel endoscope-port unit for lumbar microendoscopic surgery: a single-center case series review

Minimally invasive spinal surgery has shown benefits not only from a clinical standpoint but also in some cost-effectiveness metrics. Microendoscopic procedures combine optical advantages of endoscopy with the preservation of bimanual surgical maneuvers that are not feasible with full percutaneous endoscopic procedures. TELIGEN is a new endoscopic platform designed to optimize these operations. Our aim was to present a retrospective review of surgical data from the first consecutive cases applying this device in our institution and describe some of its technical details. 25 patients have underwent procedures using this device at our institution to the date, with a mean follow-up of 341.7 ± 45.1 days. 17 decompression-only procedures, including microendoscopic discectomies (MED) and decompression of stenosis (MEDS), with or without foraminotomies (± MEF) and 8 microendoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (ME-TLIF) were performed. Mean age and body mass index (BMI) were respectively 58.8 ± 17.4 years and 27.6 ± 5.3 kg/m2. Estimated blood loss (13 ± 4.8, 12.8 ± 6.98 and 76.3 ± 35.02 mL), postoperative length of hospital stay (11.2 ± 21.74, 22.1 ± 26.85 and 80.7 ± 44.60 h), operative time (130.3 ± 58.53, 121 ± 33.90 and 241.5 ± 45.27 min) and cumulative intraprocedural radiation dose (14.2 ± 6.36, 15.4 ± 12.17 and 72.8 ± 12.26 mGy) are reported in this paper for MED ± MEF, MEDS ± MEF and ME-TLIF, respectively. TELIGEN affords an expanded surgical field of view with unique engineered benefits that provide a promissing platform to enhance minimally invasive spine surgery.

Advancing insights into recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A comparative analysis of surgical approaches and a new classification

Background

The management of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) lacks a consensus. Consequently, the choice between repeat microdiscectomy (MD) without fusion, discectomy with fusion, or endoscopic discectomy without fusion typically hinges on the surgeon's expertise. This study conducts a comparative analysis of postoperative outcomes among these three techniques and proposes a straightforward classification system for rLDH aimed at optimizing management.

Patients and Methods

We examined the patients treated for rLDH at our institution. Based on the presence of facet resection, Modic-2 changes, and segmental instability, they patients were categorized into three groups: Types I, II, and III rLDH managed by repeat MD without fusion, MD with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) (MD + TLIF), and transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (TFED), respectively.

Results

A total of 127 patients were included: 52 underwent MD + TLIF, 50 underwent MD alone, and 25 underwent TFED. Recurrence rates were 20%, 12%, and 0% for MD alone, TFED, and MD + TLIF, respectively. A facetectomy exceeding 75% correlated with an 84.6% recurrence risk, while segmental instability correlated with a 100% recurrence rate. Modic-2 changes were identified in 86.7% and 100% of patients experiencing recurrence following MD and TFED, respectively. TFED exhibited the lowest risk of durotomy (4%), the shortest operative time (70.80 ± 16.5), the least blood loss (33.60 ± 8.1), and the most favorable Visual Analog Scale score, and Oswestry Disability Index quality of life assessment at 2 years. No statistically significant differences were observed in these parameters between MD alone and MD + TLIF. Based on this analysis, a novel classification system for recurrent disc herniation was proposed.

Conclusion

In young patients without segmental instability, prior facetectomy, and Modic-2 changes, TFED was available should take precedence over repeat MD alone. However, for patients with segmental instability, MD + TLIF is recommended. The suggested classification system has the potential to enhance patient selection and overall outcomes.

Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Versus Microscopic Lumbar Discectomy: A Preliminary Analysis of L5-S1 Lumbar Disc Herniation Outcomes in Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

A preliminary report from a single institution, noninferiority, prospective randomized controlled trial is conducted to determine the effectiveness of interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) versus microscopic lumbar discectomy (MLD) for the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

METHODS

This prospective, noncrossover, randomized controlled trials was conducted at a single neurosurgical center. Patients with symptomatic radiculopathy or intermittent neurogenic claudication caused by LDH were enrolled from July 2016 to July 2021. The study compared the effectiveness of microscopic and full-endoscopic discectomy procedures. Outcome measures included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index scores, radiologic measurements, endurance time of walking, and satisfaction rate.

RESULTS

Of 37 assessed patients, both IELD and MLD groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS scores for pain over time, with no significant difference between them. For secondary outcomes, the IELD group had a shorter hospital stay and reduced blood loss but a longer operation time than the MLD group. Radiographic evaluations showed no change compared to preoperative data. Patient satisfaction and recovery rates were slightly higher for the MLD group, but both groups were comparable in most evaluations, with complications being minimal.

CONCLUSION

The IELD was noninferior in improving the intensity of back and leg pain and functional disability, compared to the MLD. Additionally, the IELD showed no difference in clinical outcomes for patients in terms of radiographic results and patient satisfaction rates. The results of this research preliminarily demonstrate that the IELD could be considered an effective alternative to MLD for L5-S1 central or paracentral LDH.

Repeat Discectomy for the Management of Same-Level Recurrent Disc Herniation: A Study of 50 Patients

Background Same-level recurrent disc herniation remains a challenge in spine surgery. Although most surgeons agree on discectomy as the treatment of choice for primary lumbar disc herniation, the management of recurrent disc herniation remains ambiguous and largely depends on the operating surgeon. Many surgeons recommend repeat discectomy over fusion because it is cheaper and less invasive. In this study, we analyzed 50 patients who underwent a repeat discectomy. Materials and methods The patients in the study had previously been managed for lumbar disc herniation and then presented with either recurrent same-level herniation or symptoms attributed to the same level. The patients were then managed with a repeat discectomy without fusion. We analyzed the preoperative and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), duration of surgery, blood loss, duration of hospitalization, and complications. Results Fifty patients were included: 27 females (54%), and 23 males (46%). They were followed up for an average of 2.81 years (range: 1-4). The mean duration of hospitalization was 4.06 ± 1.5 days (range: 2-8). The operative time was 104.60 minutes (range: 50-195), with an intraoperative blood loss of 85.40 mL (range: 50-150 mL). Durotomy occurred as a complication in eight (16%) patients. The recurrence rate was 26%, with 36% progressing to fusion. The change in preoperative ODI and postoperative ODI was 20.94 ± 7.24 (6-37), with a p-value of 0.04. There were no long-term complications recorded. Conclusion Repeat discectomy is a good management option for same-level recurrent disc herniation. The procedure is associated with low intraoperative blood loss and a short operating time, but there is a significant risk of durotomy. The risk of recurrence remains a concern due to the progression of degenerative changes, especially in the presence of Modic-2 changes. These advantages and disadvantages should be discussed with patients.