Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Research Articles

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

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). 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. 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. 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.

A Modified Laminotomy for Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: Technical Report and Preliminary Results.

To introduce a technique of laminotomy using a common trephine to enlarge the interlaminar space at L4/5 segment for interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) and report the anatomical basis of this procedure, technical details, as well as primary clinical outcomes of a consecutive patient cohort with L4/5 lumbar disc herniation (LDH). On anteroposterior fluoroscopy, the intersection of the medial edge of the inferior articular process and the inferior endplate of L4 vertebra was taken as the target. Using a common trephine, laminotomy was performed to remove a big portion of the posterior wall of the canal under the guidance of endoscopy. From June 2018 to December 2021, the consecutive patients who underwent L4/5 IELD were prospectively studied. Clinical outcomes were assessed at the day before surgery, 1 day, 1 month, 3 months, 12 months after surgery, and the last follow-up. Numerical Rating Scale, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and MacNab criteria were used to evaluate back and leg pain, the quality of life, and clinical efficacy, respectively. There were 64 men and 44 women, with an age of 50.3 ± 14.9 years. The operating time was 74.54 ± 17.42 minutes. The mean follow-up time was 32.7 ± 18.6 months (range, 12-64 months). The complications of IELD included numbness, neck pain, and recurrence. Both leg pain (6.2 ± 1.9 vs. 1.8 ± 0.8, p < 0.001) and back pain (3.1 ± 2.3 vs. 1.7 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) quickly improved after this procedure and maintained (1.1 ± 1.5, 1.1 ± 1.3) at final follow-up. Physical disability due to back pain, as assessed using RMDQ, was improved remarkably after surgery (15.0 ± 5.8 vs. 2.9 ± 4.1, p < 0.001). In addition, MacNab outcome grade was evaluated as good-to-excellent in 96 cases (88.9%). A convenient technique of laminotomy using a common trephine was proposed for the L4/5 IELD. It can efficiently enlarge the interlaminar entry to perform endoscopic discectomy. This procedure is particularly suitable for treating LDH with concomitant lumbar spinal stenosis and migrated herniated disc.

A 2-Year Outcomes and Complications of Various Techniques of Lumbar Discectomy: A Multicentric Prospective Study.

Prospective Study. There are numerous techniques for performing lumbar discectomy, each with its own rationale and stated benefits. The authors set out to evaluate and compare the perioperative variables, results, and complications of each treatment in a group of patients provided by ten hospitals and operated on by experienced surgeons. This prospective study comprised of 591 patients operated between February-2017 to February-2019. The procedures included open discectomy, microdiscectomy, tubular microdiscectomy, interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy, transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy and Destandau techniques with a follow-up of minimum 2years. VAS (Visual Analogue Score) for back and leg pain, ODI (Oswestry Disability Index), duration of surgery, hospital stay, length of scar, operative blood loss and peri-operative complications were recorded in each group. Post-operatively, there was a significant improvement in the VAS score for back pain as well as leg pain, and ODI scores spanning all groups, with no significant distinction amongst them. When compared to open procedures (open discectomy and microdiscectomy), minimally invasive surgeries (tubular discectomy, interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy, transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy, and Destandau techniques) reported shorter operative time, duration of hospital stays, better cosmesis, and lower blood loss. Overall, the complication rate was reported to be 8.62%. Complication rates differed slightly across approaches. Minimally invasive surgeries have citable advantages over open approaches in terms of perioperative variables. However, all approaches are successful and provide comparable pain relief with similar functional outcomes at long term follow up.

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

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

Letter to editor regarding "The Efficacy and Safety of Topical Saline Irrigation with Tranexamic Acid on Perioperative Blood Loss in Patients Treated with PELD".

Letter: We have read the recent article published by Zhang et al titled "The Efficacy and Safety of Topical Saline Irrigation with Tranexamic Acid on Perioperative Blood Loss in Patients Treated with Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Diskectomy: A Retrospective Study". In this retrospective study, authors performed interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) for L5-S1 disc herniations, categorizing patients into two groups. One group underwent IELD with saline irrigation fluid containing 0.33 gm of tranexamic acid (TXA) per 1L of saline, while the other group received only saline irrigation fluid. We appreciate the authors' efforts in shedding light on the use of TXA in irrigation fluid, which currently has limited literature available. However, we wish to highlight several points of concern that, in our view, warrant further discussion. Upon reviewing the manuscript, our initial concern centers on the reported amount of blood loss, a crucial outcome in this study. The blood loss figures presented in this study appear significantly higher compared to the existing literature. In both study groups, the authors indicate total blood loss (TBL) exceeding 300 ml and intraoperative blood loss (IBL) surpassing 40 ml. In contrast, a systematic review and meta-analysis by Jitpakdee et al. (1) reported a range of blood loss from 10.9 ml to 23.35 ml for interlaminar endoscopic discectomy without any systemic or local use of tranexamic acid. Accurately assessing blood loss in endoscopic spine surgery poses a challenge, and the accuracy of indirect calculation methods is questionable, particularly when bleeding is minimal. Endoscopic discectomy has been proven benefits by minimal tissue damage and negligible blood loss. Another significant concern we would like to address is related to the safety and efficacy of topical tranexamic acid (TXA) use in endoscopic spine surgery. The existing literature generally accepts the safety profile and efficacy of use of intravenous TXA in open spine surgery where the blood loss incurred is substantial (2, 3). However, when it comes to the safety of topical TXA, it is important to note that TXA is known to have neurotoxic and epileptogenic properties when applied to central nervous system (CNS) tissue (5, 6). This is due to its interference with central GABAA receptors and glycine receptors (7). In endoscopic spine surgeries, small dural tears can sometimes go unnoticed due to continuous irrigation fluid pressure. In such cases, the potential CNS side effects associated with topical TXA could pose a real danger. Furthermore, even when dural tears are identified during surgery, it can be challenging to completely washout all the irrigation fluid containing TXA from the surgical field. The accumulation of excessive epidural or intrathecal TXA, especially after a dural tear, can lead to life-threatening conditions such as seizures or arrhythmias, significantly increasing morbidity and mortality in what is often intended as a day-care procedure. Moreover, the authors have not mentioned any exclusion criteria for patients with conditions that are suspected to elevate risk of developing TXA-related side effects, such as a history of thromboembolic events and/or coagulopathy, convulsive disorders and dural disruption. Lastly, in terms of the efficacy of TXA, there are limited studies demonstrating the use of local TXA in spine surgeries to reduce blood loss. For example, Krohn et al(4) used topical TXA irrigation in open instrumented spinal fusion surgery before wound closure. Their study showed a reduction in postoperative blood loss, with drain output decreasing from 525 ml in the non-TXA group to 252 ml in the TXA group. However, it had no significant effect on intraoperative blood loss. We would like to raise a pertinent question regarding endoscopic discectomy procedures, which are characterized by minimal blood loss and are often conducted as day-care surgeries. It becomes a matter of concern whether the potential advantages of using topical TXA in reducing blood loss outweigh the associated risks of neurological damage to the central nervous system (CNS) and other potentially life-threatening complications.

Technical feasibility of combined uniportal unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression and interlaminar lumbar discectomy surgery for cauda equina syndrome due to lower lumbar disc herniation

BackgroundTraditionally, open wide laminectomy and discectomy have been advocated for the treatment of cauda equina syndrome caused by lumbar disc herniation. We aimed to evaluate the technical feasibility of uniportal interlaminar endoscopy in treating cauda equina syndrome. MethodsNine patients with cauda equina syndrome underwent uniportal endoscopic decompression and discectomy from December 2020 to December 2022. Data were collected retrospectively. Patients diagnosed with cauda equina syndrome were operated on within 6 hours of presentation to the hospital. The visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and bladder/bowel score were used to measure the outcome. ResultsAnalysis showed that VAS scores for leg pain and back pain significantly decreased from preoperative scores of 8.22±0.79 and 4.67±1.76 to postoperative day 1 scores of 0.67±0.67 and 2.56±1.42 (p<.05). The ODI scores improved from preoperative 52.33±11.93 to postoperative (day 1) 14±6.80. Eight patients had early recovery (1 week) of bladder and bowel functions, and one had delayed recovery at 8 months. None of the patients had a residual bowel/bladder deficit. Macnab's criteria outcomes were excellent in all patients at the final follow-up. ConclusionsUniportal endoscopic lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression and subsequent interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy is a safe and effective minimally invasive course of treatment for cauda equina syndrome as an alternative to open laminectomy in our cohort of patients.

Spinal anesthesia for L5-S1 interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a retrospective study

ObjectiveThis study aimed to report our experience with spinal anesthesia (SA) in patients undergoing L5-S1 interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) and clarify its advantages and disadvantages.MethodsOne hundred twelve patients who underwent IELD for an L5-S1 disc herniation under SA were retrospectively analyzed. SA with 0.5% ropivacaine was administered using a 27-gauge fine needle. Intraoperatively, the volume and level of SA, surgical time, blood loss, and cardiopulmonary complications were documented. Postoperative data was collected included the number of patients who ambulated on the day of surgery, incidence of complications and were then statistically analyzed.ResultsAnalgesia was complete throughout the entire operation in all patients and no other adjuvant intraoperative analgesic drugs were needed. Mean visual analog scale scores for intraoperative and early postoperative (24 h) pain were 0 and 2.43 ± 1.66. SA was administered at the L3-4 interspace in 34 patients (30.4%) and the L2-3 interspace in 78 (69.6%). Administration was successful with the first attempt in all patients. Mean operation time was 70.12 ± 6.52 min. Mean intraoperative blood loss volume was 20.71 ± 5.26 ml. Ninety-eight patients ambulated on the same day as surgery. Mean length of hospital stay was 24.36 ± 3.64 h. Dural injury without damaging the nerve root occurred in one patient. One patient experienced recurrent disc herniation. Intraoperative hypotension and respiratory distress occurred in five (4.5%) and three (2.7%) patients, respectively. Three patients (2.7%) received postoperative analgesia therapy and two (1.8%) experienced nausea. Two patients (1.8%) developed urinary retention. Spinal headache, cauda equina syndrome, and neurotoxicity did not occur.ConclusionSA can achieve satisfactory pain control for patients undergoing IELD with a low incidence of adverse events. SA may be a useful alternative to local and general anesthesia for IELD surgery. Future randomized controlled trials are warranted to investigate.

Propensity matched outcome analysis following microdiscectomy versus interlaminar endoscopic discectomy for L5-S1 disc herniation

PurposeThe main purpose of the study is to perform a propensity-matched functional outcome analysis following microdiscectomy (MD) versus interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) for L5-S1 disc herniation. Although many studies have compared endoscopic lumbar discectomy and microdiscectomy, few have compared the outcomes of microdiscectomy (MD) and interlaminar endoscopic discectomy (IELD) at the L5-S1 level. MethodsThis is a propensity-matched analysis of 100 patients (50 MD patients, 50 IELD patients) based on baseline covariates with a minimum of one-year follow-up. Patient-reported outcome measures were obtained from EMR during follow-up visits. Back pain and sciatic pain were assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS-B and VAS-L). Functional outcome was assessed using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) Score and 12-item Short Form Survey (SF-12) score. Data were obtained at baseline (pre-op) and at 0, 1, 3, and 12 months post-operatively. ResultsMean operative time was significantly lower (p < 0.001) in the IELD group (44 min) compared to the MD group (59 min). Mean VAS-B at the immediate and 1-month postoperative period was significantly (p < 0.001) lower in the IELD group (0.36, 0.24) when compared with the MD group (1.74, 1.16). There was no significant difference between IELD and MD groups with regard to improvement in sciatic pain (VAS-L). ODI scores at 1 month and 3 months post-operative period were significantly (p < 0.001) lower in the IELD group (30.1, 23.2) when compared with the MD group (41, 27.5). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups with regards to VAS-B, ODI, and SF-12 at 1-year follow-up. ConclusionOur findings indicate that the IELD group achieved better immediate and early postoperative outcomes despite no significant difference at one-year follow-up.

Comparison of the Interlaminar and Transforaminal Approaches for Full-endoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of L4/5 Lumbar Disc Herniation.

This study aims to compare the outcomes of interlaminar and transforaminal approaches for full-endoscopic discectomy (FED) for treating L4/5 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).A retrospective study of patients with L4/5 LDH treated with interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD, n = 19) or transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD, n = 105) was conducted. Patient background, radiological findings, and operative data were collected. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and European Quality of Life-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) scores were recorded preoperatively and 1 and 2 years postoperatively.Although ODI and EQ-5D scores 1 and 2 years postoperatively improved statistically in the IELD and TELD groups, there were no statistical differences between the groups. IELD was predominantly performed in patients who were taller and heavier. The mean operative times and the frequency of laminectomy for IELD and TELD were 67.2 and 44.6 min and 63.2 and 17.1%, respectively (P < 0.001). The radiological findings showed that the concave configuration of the L4 lamina, interlaminar space width, and foraminal width were statistically different between the groups. There were no complications in either of the groups. Reoperation was required for recurrence in two and five patients in the IELD and TELD groups (P = 0.29), respectively.Operative outcomes were identical between the two groups. Although the operative time was longer in the IELD group, both approaches were safely and effectively performed. Depending on the patient's physique and preoperative radiological findings, the more suitable approach for L4/5 LDH should be chosen.

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

INTRODUCTION: The endoscopic lumbar discectomy can be divided into two main approaches, transforaminal (TELD) and interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD). However, results of comparative studies between these techniques have been inconsistent, and consensus on the decision making to select which approach has not been reached. METHODS: Three 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, 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 1,948 patients from 18 studies were included, consisting of 1,006 patients (51.6%) in TELD group and 942 (48.4%) patients in IELD group. TELD had slightly better improvement of postoperative ODI (MD = 1.26; 95% CI: 0.07–2.16; P = 0.04), postoperative VASB (MD = -0.23; 95% CI: -0.40 to -0.05; P = 0.01) and last follow-up VASB (MD = -0.25; 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.09; P = 0.002), but with longer operative time (MD = 10.1 mins; 95% CI: 1.925–18.77; P &lt; 0.00001) and more fluoroscopic time (SMD = 4.12; 95% CI: 3.22–5.03; P &lt; 0.00001), especially in L5-S1 operation. Postoperative bed rest time was significantly longer in IELD. However, there was no difference in VASL, hospital stays, or complication. CONCLUSIONS: 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 helpful results to consider which approach is suitable for selected patients and informed consent of benefits from each approach.

A Narrative Review of Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Using Interlaminar Approach

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a frequently encountered pathologic condition in orthopedic daily practice. Discectomyis considered when patients with LDH experiencepersistent limb or lumbar pain or neurologic deficits. Various minimally invasive techniques are available for discectomy. Among these techniques, full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FED) is one of the least invasive options. During FED, removal of LDH is accomplished using 2 major approaches: transforaminal (TF) or interlaminar (IL). The prototype FED was percutaneous nucelotomy. An endoscope was integrated to percutaneous nucelotomy and TF endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) was first derived. IL endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) was introduced years after TELD. TELD and IELD can compensate for the shortcomings of each other and endoscopic spine surgeons need to acquire both techniques to deal with all type of LDHs. Because of its long history, the TF approach seems to represent the major approach for FED, but the IL approach has numerous benefits in particular types of LDH. The present article focuses on IELD and reviews the history, surgical techniques, indications and contraindications, clinical outcomes, and complications. This review will contribute to improved understanding of IELD as an important technique in full-endoscopic spine surgery.

Comparison of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy with Other Surgical Technics: A Systemic Review of Indications and Outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy from the Current Literature

Unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spine surgery for spinal diseases has been increasing in popularity because of its favorable outcomes. The goal of this systemic review is to analyze the status of outcomes and complications in lumbar disc herniation during UBE discectomy. A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and OVID databases published until June 30, 2021, was performed. The outcomes of interest were indications, operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, complications, visual analog scale score, and Oswestry Disability Index. Seven studies were included in our research. UBE surgery for lumbar stenosis was excluded. A total of 230 patients with lumbar disc herniation were enrolled in the 7 selected studies. The mean operative time was 74.4 minutes, and the mean length of hospital stay was 4.5 days. Mean incidence of complications reported in the 7 articles was 6.2%. UBE showed shorter hospital stays than did microdiscectomy, no significant differences of Oswestry Disability Index or visual analog scale scores, and good recovery rate among other discectomy techniques (microdiscectomy, full endoscopic transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy, and interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy) at 1 month follow-up. Even with the small number of studies and reports analyzed, biases were the main limitation of this analysis; overall, the clinical outcomes and complication rates associated with UBE discectomy were relatively good. It is clear that UBE discectomy is a good treatment choice for lumbar disc herniation, but to prevent unique UBE surgery complications, a clear understanding of the surgical procedures and careful efforts to overcome the learning curve are necessary.

The clinical efficacy of biportal endoscopy is comparable to that of uniportal endoscopy via the interlaminar approach for the treatment of L5/S1 lumbar disc herniation.

ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopy/biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (UBE/BESS) via the posterior approach with those of interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) for the treatment of L5/S1 lumbar disc herniation.MethodsWe collected the clinical data of patients with L5/S1 lumbar disc herniation who had undergone endoscopic surgery at our center from January 2020 to July 2021, and 92 patients were included. They were divided into UBE/BESS (n = 42) and IELD (n = 50) groups. The incision length, operative time (overall operative, extracanal operative, and intracanal decompression times), intraoperative radiation exposure dose, changes in hemoglobin before and after surgery, postoperative hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS) score for low back pain and leg, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were statistically analyzed.ResultsOne case incurred dural tear in the UBE/BESS group, and one case developed recurrence in the IELD group. Postoperatively, the VAS score and ODI index decreased significantly in both groups (P < 0.01). VAS and ODI scores (preoperative as well as 3 days, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery), the overall operative time, and postoperative hospital stay were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). No statistical difference in intraoperative radiation exposure dose was noted between the two groups (P > 0.05). The surgical incision length was greater in the UBE/BESS group (P < 0.01), and pre- and postoperative hemoglobin changes were more pronounced in the UBE/BESS group (P < 0.01). The UBE/BESS group had a longer extracanal operative time and shorter intracanal decompression time (P < 0.01).ConclusionsThe clinical efficacy of UBE/BESS for L5/S1 lumbar disc herniation is comparable to that of IELD. Intraoperative radiation exposure doses were similar in both techniques. UBE/BESS required more time to identify tissue structures and a larger working space when operating outside the spinal canal; however, the efficiency of nucleus pulposus removal and nerve root release inside the spinal canal superseded that in IELD. Furthermore, the surgical incision in the UBE/BESS technique was longer, with greater actual blood loss during surgery, thus rendering UBE/BESS inferior to the IELD technique in terms of surgical trauma. Nonetheless, no significant difference was noted between the two techniques in the postoperative recovery time of patients.

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

Meta-analysis and systematic review. 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. 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. 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 = 10.1min; 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. 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.

Usefulness of Source Images of Magnetic Resonance Myelograms and Partial Laminectomy for Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy at L5-S1: A Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Results.

The primary objective of this study was to assess the clinical and radiologic outcomes and introduce the technical notes from 10 patients who underwent interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) at L5-S1 using the source images of magnetic resonance (MR) myelograms and performing partial laminectomy. A biportal endoscopic system was used to perform partial laminectomy, followed by fragmentectomy and subtotal discectomy using a uniportal endoscopic system. The source images of MR myelograms were used to identify the anatomical relationship between the herniated disc material, L5 and S1 nerve roots, the thecal sac, and L5 lamina. Preoperative leg and back visual analog scale scores were greatly improved immediately and after 3 months and 6 months postoperatively. Fragmentectomy and subtotal discectomy became easier after performing a partial laminectomy in all IELD cases at L5-S1. The source images of MR myelograms and partial laminectomy is useful for IELD at L5-S1. Level IV.

A Two-year Outcome of Various Techniques of Discectomy On Complications: A Multicentric Retrospective Study

Objective: Various techniques of performing lumbar discectomy are prevalent, each having its rationale and claimed benefits. The authors ventured to assess the total complication rate of lumbar discectomy as well as the complication rates of individual complications, namely CSF leaks, superficial wound infections, deep wound infections, recurrence rates, re-operation rates, and wrong level surgery.Methods: This was a retrospective study of patients operated using open discectomy (OD), microdiscectomy (MD), microendoscopic discectomy (MED), interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD), transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD), and Destandau techniques (DT) with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The inclusion criteria were age&gt;15 years, failed conservative treatment for 4-6 weeks, and the involvement of a single lumbar level.Results: There is no statistically significant association between surgical technique and complications. The total complication rate was 12.89% in 946 operated cases. The most common complication was recurrence (5.81%), followed by re-operation (3.69%), CSF leak (1.90%), wrong level surgery (0.63%), superficial infection (0.52%) and deep infection (0.31%). There were minor differences in the incidence of complications between techniques.Conclusion: This is the first study to compare the complication rates of all the prevalent discectomy techniques across the globe in 946 patients. Although there were minor differences in incidences of complications between individual techniques, there was no statistical significance. The various rates of individual complications provide a reference value for future studies related to complications following discectomy.

Interlaminar full-endoscopic discectomy for L5-S1 disc herniations: Surgical technique and early outcomes during the learning curve

Background: Interlaminar full endoscopic discectomy has been the least invasive and preferred route to treat disc herniations at L5-S1 and are being increasingly accepted and adopted in many centres. Compared to transforaminal approach, it offers the advantage of a familiar posterior approach with presumably easier transition for surgeons who have been doing another form of minimally invasive spine surgery.Objective: The article describes the surgical steps and early outcomes along the initial learning curve of Interlaminar Endoscopic discectomy for herniated disc at L5-S1 level.Material and Methods: This retrospective study included the first 20 patients who underwent Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy (IELD) at our center. Patients with unilateral symptoms, failed conservative treatment, and good interlaminar window were selected for IELD. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score s and McNab criteria were used to assess the outcome. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was done in the majority of patients to assess and correlate the adequacy of root decompression and extent of discectomy.Results: The mean age of the 20 patients was 41 years (17 to 60 yr) with a male: female ratio of 3:2. The median surgical time was 80 min (40 to 150 min). The mean VAS scores for leg pain reduced from 8.2 preoperatively to 2.1 in the postoperative period. All patients had a minimum follow-up for 6 months. Postoperative MRI was done in 14 patients, which showed complete fragment removal with the good decompression of the nerve root in 12 patients. There was no early recurrence of radicular symptoms in any patient. According to Modified McNab criteria, 8 patients had excellent outcome, 9 patients had good outcome, and 3 patients did fairly well.Conclusion: IELD offers an excellent alternative to tubular surgeries for treating disc pathologies at L5-S1. This series represents the early reports from the first 20 cases at the author's center who have been performing tubular surgeries for more than a decade. With the learning curve been overcome, the technique could be used in a wider array of lumbar spine pathologies henceforth.

Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: A Narrative Review.

When pain caused by lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is not relieved after 4 to 6 weeks of conservative treatment, surgery is recommended. Open microdiscectomy is a standard surgical technique, but surgical endoscopy enables endoscopic lumbar surgery with clinical outcomes similar to those of standard microdiscectomy. Endoscopic lumbar discectomy is largely divided into transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) and interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD). TELD was introduced about 10 years earlier than IELD and seems to be more popular than IELD. The present article reviews the surgical technique, indications, and outcomes of IELD. Although much is still unknown, potential future perspectives are reviewed. Although improved surgical techniques enable TELD to be versatile, IELD is still specifically beneficial for patients with highly migrated LDH and a high iliac crest. There is a large body of literature indicating favorable outcomes with both TELD and IELD. Currently, the selection of TELD or IELD is at the discretion of the surgeon, but the IELD surgical technique is useful for further applying endoscopic lumbar surgery for lumbar decompression or lumbar interbody fusion. The techniques can be assisted by advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, surgical robots, and artificial reality, and a precise and systematic approach to decision-making and surgical techniques is required to combine these technologies effectively.

A 2-Year Outcomes and Complications of Various Techniques of Lumbar Discectomy: A Multicentric Retrospective Study

Various techniques of performing lumbar discectomy are prevalent, each having its rationale and claimed benefits. The authors ventured to assess the perioperative factors, outcomes, and complications of each procedure and compare among them with 946 patients contributed by 10 centers and operated by experienced surgeons. This was a retrospective study of patients operated using open discectomy, microdiscectomy, microendoscopic discectomy, interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy, transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy, and Destandau techniques with a follow-up of minimum 2 years. The inclusion criteria were age >18 years, failed conservative treatment for 4-6 weeks, and the involvement of a single lumbar level. There was a significant improvement in the visual analog scale score of back, leg, and Oswestry Disability Index scores postoperatively across the board, with no significant difference between them. Minimally invasive procedures (microendoscopic discectomy, interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy, transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy, and Destandau techniques) had shorter operation time, hospital stay, better cosmesis, and decreased blood loss compared with open procedures (open discectomy and microdiscectomy). The overall complication rate was 10.1%. The most common complication was recurrence (6.86%), followed by reoperation (4.3%), cerebrospinal fluid leak (2.24%), wrong level surgery (0.74%), superficial infection (0.62%), and deep infection (0.37%). There were minor differences in incidence of complications between techniques. Although minimally invasive techniques have some advantages over the open techniques in the perioperative factors, all the techniques are effective and provide similar pain relief and functional outcomes at the end of 2 years. The various rates of individual complications provide a reference value for future studies.

Endoscopic and Microscopic Interlaminar Discectomy for the Treatment of Far-Migrated Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Study with a 24-Month Follow-Up.

PurposePercutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for the treatment of far-migrated lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is clinically challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) and interlaminar microscopic lumbar discectomy (IMLD) for the treatment of far-migrated LDH.Materials and MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 50 consecutive cases of far-migrated LDH treated by IELD or IMLD. Clinical data and outcomes were assessed before the operation and 1 day and 3, 12, and 24 months after the surgery using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI). Modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate patient satisfaction at the 24-month follow-up.ResultsA significant reduction in leg pain and improvement in ODI (P<0.01) were observed in both groups after surgery. Lower back pain (LBP) was reduced at 24 months postsurgery in the IELD group (P<0.05) but not in the IMLD group (P>0.05). There were significant intergroup differences in VAS LBP score at 1 day and 24 months postsurgery (p=0.01 and 0.02, respectively) and in ODI at 24 months (p=0.03). The rate of excellent or good outcome was 90.32% with IELD and 78.95% with IMLD (p=0.55). Hospital stay and time to ambulation were shorter in the IELD group than in the IMLD group, but the former had a longer operative time (p<0.01). Low and comparable complication rates were reported in the IELD (16.13%) and IMLD (10.53%) groups (p=0.70).ConclusionBoth IELD and IMLD achieve favorable clinical results in the treatment of far-migrated LDH, with only minor complications. Compared to IMLD, LBP was significantly reduced with IELD presumably because it involved less trauma.