• Sung Kyu Song, Seong Son, Sun Woo Choi, and Hwi Kyung Kim.
• Department of Neurosurgery, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, South Korea.
• Pain Physician. 2021 Jul 1; 24 (4): E467-E475.

BackgroundAlthough many studies have compared full endoscopic spine surgery and open spine surgery, few have compared the outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy (PEILD) and open lumbar microdiscectomy (OLM) at the L5-S1 level.ObjectivesWe compared the clinical, surgical, and radiological outcomes of patients with disc herniation at the L5-S1 level who underwent either PEILD, or OLM, performed by a single surgeon with novice-level proficiency.Study DesignObservational, retrospective matched cohort design.SettingAn analysis of clinical data was performed at a single center, collected from September 2012 to August 2016.MethodsThe study enrolled 56 patients who underwent discectomy at the L5-S1 level, with a minimum one-year follow-up. Patients were allocated to 2 groups: a PEILD group (n = 27; September 2014 to August 2016), or an OLM group (n = 29; September 2012 to August 2014). Clinical, surgical, and radiological outcomes were retrospectively evaluated.ResultsBaseline characteristics including age, gender, past medical history, body mass index, preoperative symptom, and preoperative radiological findings did not differ significantly between the groups. Further, overall clinical outcomes including back and leg pain; surgical outcomes including blood loss, complication rate, and recurrence rate; and radiological outcomes including degree of decompression, disc height, and sagittal alignment were not different significantly between the 2 groups.However, the PEILD group showed significant advantages including lower immediate postoperative back pain (mean 1.44 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16-1.72] versus 2.41 [95% CI, 2.14-2.69], P < 0.001), favorable immediate postoperative Odom's criteria (excellent 57.14% versus 24.14%, P = 0.025), shorter operation time (mean 63.89 ±17.99 minutes versus 109.66 ±31.42 minutes, P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (3.15 [95% CI, 2.21-4.09] days versus 5.72 [95% CI, 3.29-8.16] days, P < 0.001), and rapid return to work (15.67 [95% CI, 12.64-18.69] days versus 24.31 [95% CI ,19.97-28.65] days, P = 0.001).LimitationDue to its retrospective nature, it was not possible to control for all variations. Moreover, the number of patients in the final cohort was relatively small.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that the PEILD group achieved better perioperative outcomes despite no significant intergroup difference in mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes.

20 keywords...

hide…