Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy and conventional discectomy for double- segmental lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective non- randomized study

Abstract Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) with the conventional lumbar discectomy (CLD) for treatment of double-segmental lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Methods: This is a retrospective non-randomized study. Forty-six patients with double-segmental LDH were enrolled. The CLD group included 14 male and 8 female patients, with the mean age of 38.0 ± 9.2 year. All the demographic files were collected, with clinical outcomes evaluated by the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the modified Macnab criteria. The operation time, intra-operation exposure time, postoperative bed-rest time, hospital-stay and complications were recorded at each follow-up point. Results: Data were evaluated with a minimum of 12 months follow-up period. In both groups, the VAS and ODI scores were significantly improved. The proportion of excellent or good outcome cases in each group was 91.7% and 86.4%, respectively. Two cases from PEID group and three cases from CLD group presented complications. The bed-rest time and hospital-stay period were significantly shortened (P < 0.05), while the operation time and intra-operation exposure time were longer in PEID group as compared to CLD group (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Both PEID and CLD are safe and effective approaches for treatment of double-segmental LDH and the PEID technique is less invasive, which accelerates patients’ recovery after surgery.