Comparison of the Outcomes of Microendoscopic Discectomy Versus Full-Endoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of L4/5 Lumbar Disc Herniation.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Comparative Study.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the outcomes of microendoscopic discectomy (MED) versus full-endoscopic discectomy (FED) for treating L4/5 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on patients with L4/5 LDH treated using MED (n = 249) or FED (n = 124). A 16-mm tubular retractor and endoscope was used for MED, while a 4.1-mm working channel endoscope was used for FED. Patient background and operative data were collected. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) scores were recorded preoperatively and at 1 and 2 years postsurgery.

RESULTS

The background data of the two groups were similar. The mean operation times for MED and FED were 59.3 and 47.7 min (respectively), and the mean volumes of removed nucleus pulposus were .65 and 1.03 g, respectively. These differences were significant ( < .001). Six dural tears and one postoperative hematoma were observed in the MED group; none were observed in the FED group. During the follow-up period, 16 MED and 7 FED patients required re-operation due to recurrence ( = 1.00). Although the ODI and EQ-5D scores significantly improved at 1 and 2 years postsurgery in both groups, the differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Operative outcomes were almost identical in both groups. We did not observe any operative or postoperative complications in FED. We, therefore, recommend FED as the first option for the treatment of L4/5 LDH since it has a better safety profile and is minimally invasive.