Comparison of Interlaminar and Transforaminal Approaches for Treatment of L5/S1 Disc Herniation by Percutaneous Endoscopic Discectomy

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) in treating L5/S1 disc herniation. Methods A retrospective analysis of 76 patients with L5/S1 intervertebral disc herniation was performed. There were two surgical treatment groups: one with patients receiving PEID and the other with patients receiving PETD. The two groups were compared by length of surgery, times of intraoperative X‐ray exposure, postoperative time in bed, length of hospital stay, operative complications, patient's assessment of pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS), and disability using the Oswestry disability index (ODI) before and after surgery. Results Subjects in the PEID group were in surgery for 60.90 ± 13.11 min and needed intraoperative X‐ray exposure 4.10 ± 1.09 times. Patients in this group were ambulatory by 7.52 ± 1.08 h after surgery and were hospitalized for 5.05 ± 0.92 days. In contrast, patients in the PETD group were in surgery for 84.06 ± 15.58 min and needed intraoperative X ray exposure 12.81 ± 8.46 times. These patients were ambulatory by 7.06 ± 0.91 h after surgery and remained in the hospital for 4.94 ± 0.80 days. Based on these data, operation time and fluoroscopy time were significantly less (P < 0.002 and P < 0.001, respectively) for subjects in the PEID group. However, ambulatory time and hospitalization were similar for both in terms of pain relief and decreased disability, and subjects in both groups responded well to the surgery and showed a significant decrease in both VAS and ODI scores at their 1‐year follow‐up (P < 0.01). Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences between the two surgeries in terms of pain relief and decrease in disability. Conclusion For L5/S1 disc herniation, PEID and PETD provide similar results for patients. However, PEID has the advantage over PETD in that it is a shorter procedure and exposes the patient to less radiation. Keywords

Keywords

• Clinical efficacy
• Lumbar disc herniation
• Minimally invasive spine surgery
• PEID
• PETD