Comparison of Endoscopic Discectomy Versus Non-Endoscopic Discectomy for Symptomatic Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN\nSystematic review.\n\n\nOBJECTIVE\nThe authors aimed to systematically compare the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic discectomy (ED) with non-endoscopic discectomy (NED) for treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH).\n\n\nMETHODS\nA systematic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for randomized controlled trial from inception until August 13, 2020. Trials which investigated multiple operative approaches on lumbar disc herniation were identified without language restrictions.\n\n\nRESULTS\nIn total, 25 trials involving 2258 patients with symptomatic LDH were included. Twenty trials performed the comparison between ED and NED. Five trials performed the comparison between percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID). The operative time of micro-endoscopic discectomy (MED) was longer than open discectomy (OD). The length of hospital stay of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) was shorter than fenestration discectomy (FD). Significant differences in intraoperative blood loss volumes were found between PELD with FD and MED with OD. The complication rate of PELD was lower than FD (PELD: 4.3%; FD: 14.6%) and the complication rate of full-endoscopic discectomy (FE) was lower than microscopic discectomy (MD) (FE: 13.4%; MD: 32.1%).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nPELD and FE have the advantage of limiting intraoperative damages. ED and NED can be both considered sufficient to achieve good clinical outcomes. PETD and PEID are able to achieve similar results but the learning curve of PETD was steeper. More independent high-quality RCTs with sufficiently large sample sizes performing cost-effectiveness analyzes are needed.