Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for LDH via a transforaminal approach versus an interlaminar approach: ameta-analysis.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to systematically compare the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) versus percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). All studies that were performed to compare PETD with PEID to treat LDH and published until 31 August 2017 were acquired through acomprehensive search in various databases. Ameta-analysis was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan5.3 software. Atotal of 13trials with 974 cases consisting of 3 randomized controlled trials, 3 prospective studies and 7 retrospective studies were included. The results suggest that patients treated with PEID experienced more significant advantages with shorter operation time, less intraoperative blood loss and less intraoperative fluoroscopy times but more complications than those treated with PETD; however, the two operative approaches did not significantly differ in terms of LDH recurrence, hospital stay, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores and MacNab criteria at the final follow-up. Based on the results of this study, although PEID may be superior to PETD in certain ways, some of its advantages have yet to be verified and the two interventions were not significantly different in terms of relief of symptoms and functional recovery. Therefore, PEID would be recommended for treating LDH especially at L5/S1 under certain conditions but aprudent attitude is necessary to choose between the two operative approaches before alarge sample and high quality randomized controlled trials have been performed.