The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2026
Transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy for lumbar disc herniations: a prospective multicenter study of recovery trajectories using high-frequency patient-reported outcome measures.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Krause Paula K, Leyendecker Jannik, Payne Cathryn, Tran Nguyen T, Teilfeian Albert, Derman Peter B, Ogunlade John, Hasan Saqib, Konakondla Sanjay, Huang Meng, Gardocki Raymond Joseph, Mahan Mark, Khan Imad, Amin Anubhav, Bredow Jan, Hofstetter Christoph P, Endoscopic Spine Research Group (ESRG)
Аннотация
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy can be performed via transforaminal (TELD) or interlaminar (IELD) routes, yet comparative evidence on early recovery trajectories remains limited.
PURPOSE: To evaluate postoperative pain and disability patterns after TELD and IELD and identify approach-specific recovery characteristics and predictors.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective multicenter cohort study.
PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 573 patients undergoing ambulatory full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (351 TELD, 222 IELD).
OUTCOME MEASURES: VAS back pain, ipsilateral leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).
METHODS: Patient-reported outcomes were collected via the SpineHealthie platform daily during week 1 and at 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Linear mixed-effects ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline patient-reported outcome measures, age, body mass index, disc morphology, and L5/S1-level were used to compare trajectories.
RESULTS: Both techniques yielded rapid, durable reductions in pain and disability. IELD demonstrated faster and more pronounced early recovery. Adjusted mean differences favored IELD at 2 weeks for back pain (-0.77; p=.014) and ODI (-2.50; p=.042), peaking at 6 months (back pain -1.27; ODI -6.14; both p<.001). Differences converged by 12 months for ODI. Surgical approach accounted for 2%-3% of variance (η²=0.02-0.03), while disc morphology (η²=0.04) and body mass index (η²=0.06) emerged as independent predictors. Age had no effect.
CONCLUSIONS: TELD and IELD are safe, effective techniques. IELD enables faster recovery and greater short-term functional improvement, whereas TELD provides durable long-term benefit, especially for foraminal and upper lumbar pathology. Outcomes depend on surgical exposure, disc morphology, and body habitus, supporting an anatomy-guided, individualized approach.
PURPOSE: To evaluate postoperative pain and disability patterns after TELD and IELD and identify approach-specific recovery characteristics and predictors.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective multicenter cohort study.
PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 573 patients undergoing ambulatory full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (351 TELD, 222 IELD).
OUTCOME MEASURES: VAS back pain, ipsilateral leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).
METHODS: Patient-reported outcomes were collected via the SpineHealthie platform daily during week 1 and at 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Linear mixed-effects ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline patient-reported outcome measures, age, body mass index, disc morphology, and L5/S1-level were used to compare trajectories.
RESULTS: Both techniques yielded rapid, durable reductions in pain and disability. IELD demonstrated faster and more pronounced early recovery. Adjusted mean differences favored IELD at 2 weeks for back pain (-0.77; p=.014) and ODI (-2.50; p=.042), peaking at 6 months (back pain -1.27; ODI -6.14; both p<.001). Differences converged by 12 months for ODI. Surgical approach accounted for 2%-3% of variance (η²=0.02-0.03), while disc morphology (η²=0.04) and body mass index (η²=0.06) emerged as independent predictors. Age had no effect.
CONCLUSIONS: TELD and IELD are safe, effective techniques. IELD enables faster recovery and greater short-term functional improvement, whereas TELD provides durable long-term benefit, especially for foraminal and upper lumbar pathology. Outcomes depend on surgical exposure, disc morphology, and body habitus, supporting an anatomy-guided, individualized approach.