Comparison of the Outcomes of Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Lumbar Discectomy and Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy at the L5-S1 Level.

BACKGROUND

Although 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.

OBJECTIVES

We 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 DESIGN

Observational, retrospective matched cohort design.

SETTING

An analysis of clinical data was performed at a single center, collected from September 2012 to August 2016.

METHODS

The 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.

RESULTS

Baseline 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).

LIMITATION

Due 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that the PEILD group achieved better perioperative outcomes despite no significant intergroup difference in mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes.