Neurospine.  2023 Dec;20(4):1457-1468. 10.14245/ns.2346674.337.

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

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
  • 2Department of Orthopedics, Chulabhorn Hospital, Chulabhorn Royal Academy, Bangkok, Thailand
  • 3Bone and Joint Excellence Center, Thonburi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
  • 4Department of Orthopedics, Thai Red Cross Society, Queen Savang Vadhana Memorial Hospital, Sriracha, Thailand

Abstract


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.

Keyword

Randomized controlled trials; Minimally invasive surgical procedures; Endoscopy; Microscopy; Lumbosacral region; Patient reported outcome measures
Full Text Links
  • NS
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr