Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy and conventional open lumbar discectomy for L4/5 and L5/S1 double-segmental lumbar disk herniation

ObjectiveAlthough spinal endoscopic techniques have shown great advantages in the treatment of single-segment lumbar disk herniation (LDH), the therapeutic advantages for double-segment LDH are controversial. To compare the outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) versus conventional open lumbar discectomy (COLD) for the treatment of L4/5 and L5/S1 double-segmental LDH.MethodsFrom January 2016 to September 2021, we included 50 patients with double-segmental LDH who underwent PEID (n = 25) or COLD (n = 25). The clinical outcomes between the two groups were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the modified MacNab criteria. Moreover, the incision length, operation time, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, postoperative bedtime, hospital stays, and complications were also recorded and compared after surgery.ResultsIn both groups, the VAS and ODI scores at different timepoints postoperatively were significantly improved compared with those preoperatively (P < 0.05) According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent or good outcome rate was 92% in the PEID group and 88% in the COLD group. The PEID group had shorter incision length, postoperative bedtime, and hospital stays than the COLD group. However, the operation time was shorter and intraoperative fluoroscopy time was fewer in the COLD group. In addition, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of surgical complications during the postoperative follow-up period.ConclusionsBoth PEID and COLD have good efficacy and high safety for management of L4/5 and L5/S1 double-segmental LDH. Compared with the COLD group, the PEID group had more operative time as well as more intraoperative fluoroscopy, but it had a more minimally invasive surgical incision as well as faster postoperative recovery.