Comparison of clinical outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy and arthroscopy-assisted unilateral spinal surgery for lumbar disc herniation: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND

The growing emphasis on enhanced recovery and reduced morbidity has accelerated the clinical adoption of endoscopic and percutaneous techniques to treat lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Our study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes, safety profiles, and learning curves between the percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and the arthroscopy-assisted unilateral spinal surgery (AUSS) in patients with LDH.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 60 patients who underwent either PEID (n = 30) or AUSS (n = 30). Patients were matched based on age, sex, and surgical level to improve the comparison. The primary outcomes were assessed using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria. The secondary outcomes including postoperative analgesic consumption, operation time, length of stay, surgical complications, postoperative recurrence, and anesthesia-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Both PEID and AUSS groups demonstrated significant postoperative improvements in VAS and ODI (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in VAS, ODI, modified MacNab criteria, postoperative analgesic consumption, surgical complications, postoperative recurrence, and anesthesia-related adverse events (P > 0.05). The AUSS group had significantly decreased operation time and increased length of stay (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Both the PEID and the AUSS groups show significant alleviation of pain and improvement of motor function after operation, few surgical complications and few postoperative recurrence, without intergroup difference. In addition, the AUSS group had significantly decreased operation time and significantly increased length of stay.