Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus open lumbar microdiscectomy for treating lumbar disc herniation: Using the survival analysis.

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the risk of symptomatic recurrent disc herniation and clinical outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) versus open lumbar microdiscectomy (OLM) for lumbar disc herniation with 2 years of follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed 23 patients who underwent PELD and 32 patients who underwent OLM for lumbar disc herniation. The numeric rating scale of back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) were assessed before and at 12 and 24 months after the surgery. The wound pain and complications were also recorded. Survival analysis was performed to estimate the risk of symptomatic recurrent disc herniation.

RESULTS

In the comparison of groups, the reductions in back and leg pain, ODI, and RMDQ were not significantly different at 12 and 24 months. For patients who underwent PELD, the wound pain was significant lower at the day of surgery. The survival rate of patients who were free from symptomatic recurrent disc herniation at 24 months was 0.913 in PELD and 0.875 in OLM, and the log-rank test revealed no significant difference between the two survival curves. The incidence of complication was not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSION

Both PELD and OLM are effective treatments for lumbar disc herniation because they have similar clinical outcomes. PELD provided patients with less painful wounds. The survival analysis revealed that the risk of symptomatic recurrent disc herniation in 2 years of follow-up was not different between PELD and OLM.