Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A meta-analysis of endoscopic discectomy versus open discectomy for symptomatic lumbar disk herniation

  • Review
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to systematically compare the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic discectomy (ED) with open discectomy (OD) for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Methods

A highly sensitive search strategy was used to identify all published randomized controlled trials up to August 2014. A criteria list taken from Koes et al. was used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included studies. The five questions that were recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group were used to evaluate the clinical relevance. Cochrane methodology was used for the results of this meta-analysis.

Results

Nine relevant RCTs involving 1,092 patients were identified. Compared with OD, ED results in slightly better clinical outcomes which were evaluated by the Macnab criteria without clinical significance (ED group: 95.76 %; OD group: 80 %; OR: 3.72, 95 % CI: [0.76, 18.14], P = 0.10), a significantly greater patient satisfaction rate (ED group: 93.21 %; OD group: 86.57 %; OR: 2.19; 95 % CI: [1.09, 4.40]; P = 0.03), lower intraoperative blood loss volume (WMD: −123.71, 95 % CI: [−173.47, −73.95], P < 0.00001), and shorter length of hospital stay (WMD: −Table 2144.45, 95 % CI: [−239.54, −49.37], P = 0.003).

Conclusions

From the existing outcomes, ED surgery could be viewed as a sufficient and safe supplementation and alternative to standard open discectomy. The cost-effectiveness analyses still remain unproved from the existing data. More independent high-quality RCTs using sufficiently large sample sizes with cost-effectiveness analyses are needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Valat JP, Genevay S, Marty M et al (2010) Sciatica. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 24:241–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mixter W, Barr J (1934) Rupture of the intervertebral disc with involvement of the spinal canal. N Engl J Med 211:205–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gibson JN, Cowie JG, Iprenburg M (2012) Transforaminal endoscopic spinal surgery: the future ‘gold standard’ for discectomy?—A review. Surgeon 10:290–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gibson JN, Waddell G (2007) Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD001350

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Yeung AT, Tsou PM (2002) Posterolateral endoscopic excision for lumbar disc herniation: surgical technique, outcome, and complications in 307 consecutive cases. Spine 27:722–731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hoogland T, Schubert M, Miklitz B et al (2006) Transforaminal posterolateral endoscopic discectomy with or without the combination of a low-dose chymopapain: a prospective randomized study in 280 consecutive cases. Spine 31:E890–E897

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Foley KT, Smith MM, Rampersaud YR (1999) Microendoscopic approach to far-lateral lumbar disc herniation. Neurosurg Focus 7:e5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Koes BW, Scholten RJ, Mens JM et al (1995) Efficacy of epidural steroid injections for low-back pain and sciatica: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Pain 63:279–288

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C et al (2003) Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine 28:1290–1299

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C et al (2009) 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane back review group. Spine 34:1929–1941

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Higgins JP, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated September 2011]. The cochrane collaboration. Available from URL: http://handbook.cochrane.org/

  12. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mantel N, Haenszel W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22:719–748

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H et al (2008) Full-endoscopic interlaminar and transforaminal lumbar discectomy ver versus conventional microsurgical technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Spine 33:931–939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H et al (2009) Recurrent lumbar disc herniation after conventional discectomy: a prospective, randomized study comparing full-endoscopic interlaminar and transforaminal versus microsurgical revision. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:122–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hermantin FU, Peters T, Quartararo L et al (1999) A prospective, randomized study comparing the results of open discectomy with those of video-assisted arthroscopic microdiscectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:958–965

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee SH, Chung SE, Ahn Y et al (2006) Comparative radiologic evaluation of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open microdiscectomy: a matched cohort analysis. Mt Sinai J Med 73:795–801

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jun-liang LIU, Wan-xin ZHEN, Guo-yong GAO et al (2014) A prospective and controlled study of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy versus fenestration discectomy for lumbar disc herniation. Chin J Bone Joint 3:245–250

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hussein M, Abdeldayem A, Mattar MMM (2014) Surgical technique and effectiveness of microendoscopic discectomy for large uncontained lumbar disc herniations: a prospective, randomized, controlled study with 8 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J 23:1992–1999

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Garg B, Nagraja UB, Jayaswal A (2011) Microendoscopic versus open discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective randomised study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 19:30–34

    Google Scholar 

  22. Righesso O, Falavigna A, Avanzi O (2007) Comparison of open discectomy with microendoscopic discectomy in lumbar disc herniations: results of a randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery 61:545–549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Teli M, Lovi A, Brayda-Bruno M et al (2010) Higher risk of dural tears and recurrent herniation with lumbar micro-endoscopic discectomy. Eur Spine J 19:443–450

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Huang TJ, Hsu RW, Li YY et al (2005) Less systemic cytokine response in patients following micro endoscopic versus open lumbar discectomy. J Orthop Res 23:406–411

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gibson JN, Waddell G et al (2007) Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse: updated cochrane review. Spine 32:1735–1747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Williams RW (1993) Lumbar disc disease microdiscectomy. Neurosurg Clin N Am 4:101–108

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Perez-Cruet MJ, Foley KT, Isaacs RE et al (2002) Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy: technique note. Neurosurgery 51:129–136

    Google Scholar 

  28. Knight MT, Ellison DR, Goswami A et al (2001) Review of safety in endoscopic laser foraminoplasty for the management of back pain. J Clin Laser Med Surg 19:147–157

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Knight MT, Goswami A, Patko JT et al (2001) Endoscopic foraminoplasty: a prospective study on 250 consecutive patients with independent evaluation. J Clin Laser Med Surg 19:73–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Lee DY, Lee SH (2008) Learning curve for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Neuro Med Chir (Tokyo) 48:383–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Choi G, Lee SH, Raiturker PP (2006) Percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy for intracanalicular disc herniations at L5-S1 using a rigid working channel endoscope. Neurosurgery 58:ONS59–ONS68

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Goald HJ (1980) Microlumbar discectomy: follow-up of 477 patients. J Microsurg 2:95–100

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Schaffer JL, Kambin P (1991) Percutaneous posterolateral lumbar discectomy and decompression with a 6.9-millimeter cannula. Analysis of operative failures and complications. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:822–831

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Kambin P (1992) Arthroscopic microdiscectomy. Arthroscopy 8:287–295

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Barrios C, Ahmed M, Arrotegui JI et al (1990) Clinical factors predicting outcome after surgery for herniated lumbar disc: an epidemiological multivariate analysis. J Spinal Disord 3:205–209

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Junge A, Dvorak J, Ahrens S (1995) Predictors of bad and good outcomes of lumbar disc surgery. A prospective clinical study with recommendations for screening to avoid bad outcomes. Spine 20:460–468

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Kahanovitz N, Viola K, Muculloch J (1989) Limited surgical discectomy and microdiscectomy. A clinical comparison. Spine 14:79–81

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Carragee EJ, Han MY, Yang B et al (1999) Activity restrictions after posterior lumbar discectomy. A prospective study of outcomes in 152 cases with no postoperative restrictions. Spine 24:2346–2351

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Nellensteijn J, Ostelo R, Bartels R et al (2010) Transforaminal endoscopic surgery for symptomatic lumbar disc herniations: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 19:181–204

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No: 81201419). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, No. 155 Nanjingbei Street, Heping District, Shenyang, 110001, Liaoning, People’s Republic of China

    Lin Cong, Yue Zhu & Guanjun Tu

Authors
  1. Lin Cong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yue Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guanjun Tu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lin Cong.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cong, L., Zhu, Y. & Tu, G. A meta-analysis of endoscopic discectomy versus open discectomy for symptomatic lumbar disk herniation. Eur Spine J 25, 134–143 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3776-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3776-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation