显微镜与椎间盘镜辅助腰椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症疗效的对比分析

目的 报道显微镜辅助直视下腰间盘切除术与椎间盘镜辅助腰间盘切除术两种不同手术方法治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效.方法 比较分析显微镜与椎间盘镜辅助下的两种不同手术方法治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症病例,治疗病例分别为33例和36例.比较手术时间、术中出血量、并发症、住院天数、术前及术后腰腿疼痛的JOAS(Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score)及VAS(Visual Analog Scales)评分、围手术期并发症等指标.结果 所有病例平均随访2年2个月(11个月至4年),2组术前及术后腰腿疼痛的JOAS及VAS评分、围手术期并发症、住院天数差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),而在手术时间、术中出血量上差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 显微镜辅助直视下腰间盘切除术与椎间盘镜辅助腰间盘切除术治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症均疗效满意,均为理想的微创手术方法.     

显微镜与显微内窥镜下微创手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效比较

目的:比较显微镜下腰椎间盘切除术(MSLD)与显微内窥镜下椎间盘切除术(MED)治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症(LDH)的疗效.方法:2006年4月～2007年10月收治单节段LDH患者278例,随机分为两组,其中148例采用MSLD治疗,130例采用MED治疗.比较两种手术的切口长度,手术时间、并发症、住院天数,手术后VAS、SF-36量表躯体疼痛评分、ODI改善率和改良MacNab评分情况.结果:MSLD组及MED组的切口长度分别为4.5±1.5cm和2.5±0.8cm.手术时间分别为40.0±13.8min和56.0±15.9min,两组间均有显著性差异(P<0.05);术中出血量分别为96±77ml和111±45ml、住院天数分别为9.4±2.6d和9.8±2.8d,两组间均无显著性差异(P>0.05).MSLD组及MED组随访时间分别为平均18.3个月和18个月,未次随访时MSLD组及MED组的VAS改善率分别为(85.3±1.8)%和(84.5±2.1)%,SF-36量表躯体疼痛评分改善率分别为(81.3±5.6)%和(80.1±6.1)%,ODI改善率分别为(85.3±1.8)%和(82.3±2.0)%,改良MacNab评分优良率分别为94.0%和93.7%,两组间比较均无显著性差异(P>0.05).MSLD组及MED组并发症分别为:腹部不适14例(9.46%)和12例(9.23%)、急性尿潴留21例(14.19%)和18例(13.84%),两组比较均无显著性差异(P>0.05);硬脊膜撕裂0例和2例(1.54%)、急性竖脊肌血肿2例(1.36%)和5例(3.85%),MSLD组明显少于MED组(P<0.01).结论:MSLD与MED治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症均可取得满意疗效,但MSLD操作简便、并发症少,是目前更为理想的微创手术方法.     

经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术与显微内窥镜下椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎椎间盘突出症的荟萃分析

目的 系统分析并比较经皮内窥镜下腰椎椎间盘切除术(PELD)与显微内窥镜下椎间盘切除术(MED)治疗腰椎椎间盘突出症(LDH)的疗效.方法 利用中国知网、万方数据、维普网、中国生物医学数据库、PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Ovid等数据库,检索国内外公开发表的治疗单节段LDH的中英文文献...     

经皮激光椎间盘气化减压术与髓核摘除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床对比研究

经皮激光椎间盘气化减压术(PLDD)是Choy于1986年率先使用的一种椎间盘突出症微创治疗方法,在我国目前已有多家医院开展了这项技术。髓核摘除术是目前临床上仍普遍应用于治疗单纯腰椎椎间盘突出症的有效方法,已有较多文献报道了他们的禁忌证、适应证及其疗效。我院自2001年5月来     

椎间盘镜手术与微创小切口手术治疗腰椎间盘突出症疗效比较

目的 比较椎间盘镜手术(MED)与微创小切口腰椎间盘手术(MTD)治疗腰椎间盘突出症的早、中期疗效.方法 将166例腰椎间盘突出症患者随机分为MED组83例和MTD组83例,分别行MED和MTD手术.对术中、术后反映手术创伤的指标进行监测和观察.结果 MED组在切口长度、术中出血及术后引流量均小于MTD组(P＜0.01).两组术后血清CRP均较术前增加,但术后MED组血清C-反应蛋白增加低于MTD组(P＜0.05).两组VAS术后评分均较术前改善(P＜0.01).患者均获随访,时间2～4年.按改良Macnab疗效评定标准:MED组优65例,良11例,可5例,差2例,优良率为91.6%;MTD组优66例,良13例,可4例,差0例,优良率为95.2%.结论 腰椎间盘突出症MED手术较MTD创伤小、术后恢复快,但两种方法早、中期疗效均较满意.     

Treatment of lumbar disc herniation: epidural steroid injection compared with discectomy. A prospective, randomized study

BACKGROUND: Epidural steroid injection is a low-risk alternative to surgical intervention in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of epidural steroid injection in the treatment of patients with a large, symptomatic lumbar herniated nucleus pulposus who are surgical candidates. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-nine patients with a large herniation of the lumbar nucleus pulposus (a herniation of >25% of the cross-sectional area of the spinal canal) were followed over a three-year period. One hundred patients who had no improvement after a minimum of six weeks of noninvasive treatment were enrolled in a prospective, non-blinded study and were randomly assigned to receive either epidural steroid injection or discectomy. Evaluation was performed with the use of outcomes scales and neurological examination. RESULTS: Patients who had undergone discectomy had the most rapid decrease in symptoms, with 92% to 98% of the patients reporting that the treatment had been successful over the various follow-up periods. Only 42% to 56% of the fifty patients who had undergone the epidural steroid injection reported that the treatment had been effective. Those who did not obtain relief from the injection had a subsequent discectomy, and their outcomes did not appear to have been adversely affected by the delay in surgery resulting from the trial of epidural steroid injection. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural steroid injection was not as effective as discectomy with regard to reducing symptoms and disability associated with a large herniation of the lumbar disc. However, epidural steroid injection did have a role: it was found to be effective for up to three years by nearly one-half of the patients who had not had improvement with six or more weeks of noninvasive care.     

MED治疗青壮年与中老年腰椎间盘突出症的疗效比较

[目的]比较椎间盘镜下髓核摘除术(microendoscopic discectomy,MED)治疗不同年龄段腰椎间盘突出症患者的疗效.[方法]回顾性分析2006年8月～2011年7月采用MED治疗的78例腰椎间盘突出症患者的临床资料.78例患者按照年龄段分为两组,A组为青壮年组,40例(年龄＜ 50岁);B组为中老年组,38例(年龄≥50岁).两组患者基本情况没有差异.对两组病例的手术时间、术中出血量;患者术前、术后1周及术后6个月时常规行疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、功能障碍指数(ODI)评分;及对术后6个月时两组的复发率进行比较.[结果]A组手术时间、术中出血量少于B组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).与术前比较,两组患者术后1周及6个月VAS及ODI评分,A组改善情况优于B组,组间差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05).A组复发率5％ (2/40),B组复发率42％(16/38),组间差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).[结论]MED治疗腰椎间盘突出症,适应证选择应侧重于青壮年.对于中老年患者的腰椎间盘突出症行MED治疗,应从严把握手术适应证.     

Microendoscopic discectomy versus open discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis

Purpose

To compare the outcomes of microendoscopic discectomy and open discectomy for patients with lumbar disc herniation.

Methods

An extensive search of studies was performed in PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane library and Google Scholar. The following outcome measures were extracted: visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), complication, operation time, blood loss and length of hospital stay. Data analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.0.

Results

Five randomized controlled trials involving 501 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the VAS, ODI or complication between the two groups. However, compared with the open discectomy, the microendoscopic discectomy was associated with less blood loss [WMD = ?151.01 (?288.22, ?13.80), P = 0.03], shorter length of hospital stay [WMD = ?69.33 (?110.39, ?28.28), P = 0.0009], and longer operation time [WMD = 18.80 (7.83, 29.76), P = 0.0008].

Conclusions

Microendoscopic discectomy, which requires a demanding learning curve, may be a safe and effective alternative to conventional open discectomy for patients with lumbar disc herniation.

     

经皮椎间孔镜与椎板开窗术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效对比

目的比较经皮内镜和椎板开窗髓核摘除术治疗单节段单侧腰椎间盘出症的临床效果及优缺点。方法回顾性分析自2011-01—2014-01诊治的278例腰椎间盘突出症,采用经皮内镜腰椎间盘切除术治疗142例,采用椎板开窗髓核摘除术治疗136例。结果椎板开窗髓核摘除术出血量多和时间短,并发症多,2组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05);术后2周、3个月和6个月Macnab标准优良率2组比较,经皮内镜腰椎间盘切除术优于椎板开窗髓核摘除术,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 2种术式都能有效缓解腰椎间盘突出症患者的症状,但经皮内镜腰椎间盘切除术后并发症发生率低,是理想的微创治疗腰椎间盘突出症的方法。     

Comparison of early and late percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for lumbar disc herniation

Background

The optimal timing for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) in cases of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is debatable. This retrospective study sought to determine which category of PELD surgical intervention time resulted in greater improvement in clinical outcomes.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 145 patients who underwent PELD for single-level LDH. The patients were divided into three categories according to the duration of leg pain before surgery, the early and late group being symptomatic for ≤3 months and >3 months, ≤6 months and >6 months, ≤12 months and >12 months. Surgical time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, hospitalization cost, rates of reoperation due to surgical failure, Macnab criteria assessment, visual analogue scale (VAS) of back pain, leg pain and numbness, Japanese orthopedic association low back pain score (JOA) before and after surgery were compared.

Results

No significant differences were found between the early and late groups according to different categories in patients’ demographics, surgical time, blood loss, preoperative and postoperative VAS (lower-back pain, leg pain and numbness) scores, JOA scores and distribution of Macnab criteria assessment. Early PELD surgical intervention did not result in greater improvement of clinical outcomes. Later surgical intervention resulted in about one-third surgical failure rates for patients being symptomatic for >6 months (≤6 months, 11/96, 11.5 %; >6 months, 2/49, 4.1 %; P?=?0.245) and >12 months (≤12 months, 12/120, 10.0 %; >12 months, 1/25, 4.0 %; P?=?0.568) of the early surgical intervention groups. Significant difference was observed between the comorbidities and non-comorbidities group in the rate of reoperation (P?=?0.040).

Conclusions

Early PELD surgical intervention did not result in greater improvement of clinical outcomes for patients with lumbar disc herniation. Later surgical intervention resulted in less failure rates for patients than the early surgical intervention groups. PELD performed when the leg pain before surgery being symptomatic for >6 months may be good for avoiding surgical failure and reducing the duration of leg pain.     

经皮内窥镜下腰椎间盘切除术治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症并发症的Meta分析

目的 :通过Meta分析评价经皮内窥镜下椎间盘切除术(percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy,PELD)治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症(RLDH)的临床相关并发症发生率,评估手术安全性。方法 :计算机检索PubMed、EMbase、The Cochrane Library、CBM、WanFang Data和CNKI数据库,搜集有关PELD治疗RLDH相关并发症的临床研究,检索时限均为建库至2019年8月。由2名研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料并评价纳入研究的偏倚风险后,采用RevMan5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入13个临床研究,包括1个随机对照试验和12个队列研究,共计患者1252例。Meta分析显示,PELD手术总体并发症[OR=0.46,95%CI(0.25,0.87),P=0.02]、硬脊膜撕裂发生率[OR=0.16,95%CI(0.05,0.56),P=0.004]低于椎板开窗髓核摘除术(P0.05),但与MED、MIS-TLIF相比,术后总体并发症发生率、硬脊膜撕裂、神经根损伤、髓核摘除不彻底发生率差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:PELD治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症较椎板开窗髓核摘除术并发症发生率低,安全性较高,在排除影像学腰椎失稳的情况下,是一种较为安全有效的治疗手段。     

椎间盘镜与椎板间开窗髓核摘除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症比较

目的　评价显微内窥镜腰椎间盘髓核摘除术 (MED)的临床疗效。方法　 39例腰椎间盘突出手术患者 ,MED组 2 3例 ,开窗手术组 16例 ,术后来院复诊 ,患者填写问卷调查表 ,医生检查患者后填写腰痛疾患评诂表 ,行MRI检查并测量椎间盘突出物的大小 ,比较MED组与开窗手术组的临床效果。结果　随访时间平均为 11个月 (3～ 19个月 )。与开窗手术组比较 ,MED组手术创伤小、术中失血量较少 ;平均住院时间较短 (P <0 0 5 )。两组患者的恢复工作时间和客观临床改善率相似 (P>0 0 5 ) ,术后总体改善率MED组为 70 2 %、开窗手术组为 70 6 %。但MED组患者主观满意率(73 9% )低于开窗手术组 (93 8% ) (P <0 0 5 )。两组间MRI的改变相似 ,术后突出物难以完全消失 ,但突出物变小。结论　MED是一种微创技术 ,临床疗效与椎板间开窗手术相近 ;随访期间 ,突出的椎间盘趋于变小但未消失     

Comparison of the outcomes for laparoscopic gastrectomy performed by the same surgeon between a low-volume hospital and a high-volume center

Background

The volume–outcome relationship in laparoscopic surgery is controversial. This study was designed to identify differences in laparoscopic gastrectomy outcomes between a low-volume hospital and a high-volume center and to provide guidelines for overcoming the problems associated with a low-volume hospital.

Methods

From April 2009 to November 2012, one surgeon performed 134 totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomies (TLDGs) at a high-volume center (HVC; ASAN Medical Center) and at a low-volume hospital (LVH; Hanyang University Guri Hospital). All laparoscopically assisted gastrectomies were excluded from this study. During the early period of laparoscopic gastrectomy at the low-volume hospital, TLDG with Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy (RYGJ) was performed according to the surgeon’s choice. The reconstruction method was classified as gastroduodenostomy (GD) or RYGJ. Early surgical outcomes achieved at the LVH were investigated and compared with those obtained at the HVC.

Results

The early surgical outcomes differed significantly between the two hospitals. In particular, the postoperative complication rate for the patients who underwent TLDG RYGJ at the LVH was higher than at the HVC (LVH 15.4 % vs. HVC 0 %; p = 0.037). Furthermore, significant differences were observed in the mean operation time (TLDG GD: LVH 141.0 min vs. HVC 117.4 min, p = 0.001; TLDG RYGJ: LVH 186.3 min vs. HVC 134.6 min, p = 0.009) and length of hospital stay (TLDG GD: LVH 8.1 days vs. HVC 7.2 days, p = 0.044; TLDG RYGJ: LVH 11.5 day vs. HVC 6.8 day, p = 0.009).

Conclusions

Although all the operations were performed by one experienced surgeon, the early surgical outcomes differed significantly between the low- and high-volume hospitals. Low-volume hospitals often lack well-trained surgical professionals such as first assistants and scrub nurses. Therefore, the authors recommend that a surgeon who works at an LVH should assess potential personnel shortages and find a solution before operating.     

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for migrated disc herniation: classification of disc migration and surgical approaches

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for migrated disc herniations is technically demanding due to the absence of the technical guideline. The purposes of this study were to propose a radiologic classification of disc migration and surgical approaches of PELD according to the classification. A prospective study of 116 consecutive patients undergoing single-level PELD was conducted. According to preoperative MRI findings, disc migration was classified into four zones based on the direction and distance from the disc space: zone 1 (far up), zone 2 (near up), zone 3 (near down), zone 4 (far down). Two surgical approaches were used according to this classification. Near-migrated discs were treated with "half-and-half" technique, which involved positioning a beveled working sheath across the disc space to the epidural space. Far-migrated discs were treated with "epiduroscopic" technique, which involved introducing the endoscope into the epidural space completely. The mean follow-up period was 14.5 (range 9-20) months. According to the Macnab criteria, satisfactory results were as follows: 91.6% (98/107) in the down-migrated discs; 88.9% (8/9) in the up-migrated discs; 97.4% (76/78) in the near-migrated discs; and 78.9% (30/38) in the far-migrated discs. The mean VAS score decreased from 7.5 +/- 1.7 preoperatively to 2.6 +/- 1.8 at the final follow-up (P < 0.0001). There were no recurrence and no approach-related complications during the follow-up period. The proposed classification and approaches will provide appropriate surgical guideline of PELD for migrated disc herniation. Based on our results, open surgery should be considered for far-migrated disc herniations.     

极外侧型腰椎间盘突出症显微内镜手术与开放手术治疗的比较

目的：比较显微内镜手术和开放手术治疗极外侧型腰椎间盘突出症，评价显微内镜手术方式的临床价值。方法：对36例极外侧型腰椎间盘突出症手术患者进行回顾性比较研究。16例接受显微内镜手术，平均年龄42．6岁(35～60岁)。20例经开放手术，平均年龄45．5岁(30～64岁)显微内镜手术分别采用经椎板间隙人路、经关节突人路和经横突间人路，在内镜下完成神经根探查、减压和椎问盘髓核摘除。开放手术采用经椎板间隙人路和经横突间人路，进行神经根减压和椎间盘髓核摘除。结果：显微内镜手术组平均随访8．3个月，平均手术时间78min，平均术中失血68ml，平均住院日13．8d。开放手术组平均随访14个门，平均手术时间74min，平均术中失血95ml，平均住院日16．5d。显微内镜手术组手术后切口疼痛轻，镇痛治疗显著少于开放手术组。采用改良MaeNab标准评价随访结果，显微内镜手术组12例患者达优，3例良，1例可。开放手术组14例患者达优，4例良，2例可。结论：显微内镜手术治疗极外侧型腰椎问盘突出症，与开放手术比较有相似的近期临床效果，但具有切口小、组织损伤轻和恢复较快的特点，能够尽可能维持腰椎稳定。     

Early neuromuscular customized training after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective controlled study

A prospective and controlled study of training after surgery for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). The objective was to determine the effect of early neuromuscular customized training after LDH surgery. No consensus exists on the type and timing of physical rehabilitation after LDH surgery. Patients aged 15–50 years, disc prolapse at L4–L5 or L5–S1. Before surgery, at 6 weeks, 4, and 12 months postoperatively, the following evaluations were performed: low back pain and leg pain estimated on a visual analog scale, disability according to the Roland–Morris questionnaire (RMQ) and disability rating index (DRI). Clinical examination, including the SLR test, was performed using a single blind method. Consumption of analgesics was registered. Twenty-five patients started neuromuscular customized training 2 weeks after surgery (early training group=ETG). Thirty-one patients formed a control group (CG) and started traditional training after 6 weeks. There was no significant difference in pain and disability between the two training groups before surgery. Median preoperative leg pain was 63 mm in ETG and 70 mm in the CG. Preoperative median disability according to RMQ was 14 in the ETG and 14.5 in the CG. Disability according to DRI (33/56 patients) was 5.3 in the ETG vs. 4.6 in the CG. At 6 weeks, 4 months, and 12 months, pain was significantly reduced in both groups, to the same extent. Disability scores were lower in the ETG at all follow-ups, and after 12 months, the difference was significant (RMQ P=.034, DRI P=.015). The results of the present study show early neuromuscular customized training to have a superior effect on disability, with a significant difference compared to traditional training at a follow-up 12 months after surgery. No adverse effects of the early training were seen. A prospective, randomized study with a larger patient sample is warranted to ultimately demonstrate that early training as described is beneficial for patients undergoing LDH surgery.     

Long-term outcomes of standard discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a follow-up study of more than 10 years

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of the long-term outcomes of standard discectomy for lumbar disc herniation. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the long-term outcomes of standard discectomy to address postoperative problems, including residual low back pain and recurrent herniation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Most previous investigators found that favorable outcomes of standard discectomy were maintained for the long-term postoperative period. Although they observed postoperative complications such as residual low back pain and recurrent herniation, detailed analyses of these results have not been conducted. METHODS: The long-term follow-up results in patients who were observed for a minimum of 10 years after standard discectomy were evaluated by using the Japanese Orthopedic Association scoring system through direct examinations and questionnaires. Radiography also was used in patients who agreed to visit the hospital, and findings were compared with those on preoperative radiographs. RESULTS: The average recovery rate calculated by using Japanese Orthopedic Association scores was 73.5 +/- 21.7%. Even though residual low back pain was found in 74.6% of the patients, only 12.7% had severe low back pain. The majority of the patients with severe low back pain were under 35 years of age at the time of operation, with preoperative advanced disc degeneration. The final Japanese Orthopedic Association scores in the patients with decreased disc height were significantly lower than those in patients with no decrease. However, the disc height of patients with a recurrent herniation was preserved. CONCLUSION: The long-term outcome of standard discectomy in this series was favorable. Although patients with preserved disc height generally had favorable results, the risk of recurrent disc herniation was high in this population.     

Low-back pain following surgery for lumbar disc herniation. A prospective study

BACKGROUND: Lumbar disc herniation often causes sciatica. Although surgery may provide relief of sciatic pain, it is uncertain how surgery affects the relief of low-back pain. The purpose of the present prospective study was to assess the efficacy of discectomy in the treatment of low-back pain associated with lumbar disc herniation. METHODS: Between 1998 and 2001, forty consecutive patients with single-level, unilateral lumbar disc herniation were treated surgically. The first twenty patients (Group 1) underwent standard discectomy, and the second twenty (Group 2) underwent microendoscopic discectomy. Curettage of the disc space was not performed. All forty patients were prospectively followed, and clinical outcomes were evaluated with use of a questionnaire. The mean duration of follow-up was forty months. RESULTS: All forty patients were satisfied with the outcome. Leg pain decreased rapidly (within one month) in all patients and continued to decrease at the time of the latest follow-up. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of leg pain, with the numbers available (p = 0.39). A significant decrease in the mean low-back pain score was noted at the time of the latest follow-up (p = 0.0007). CONCLUSIONS: Excision of a herniated disc for relief of sciatica provided rapid relief of sciatica and low-back pain. The findings of the present small study suggest that lumbar disc herniation might be a possible cause of low-back pain.     

A matched comparison of outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar microdiscectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a 2-year retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND CONTEXTAlthough open lumbar microdiscectomy (OLMD) is considered to be the gold standard method for discectomy, recent progress in endoscopic spinal surgery has increased the popularity of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for this indication. However, one of the main drawbacks of PELD is incomplete decompression, especially at the start of the surgeon's learning curve. The functional outcomes of PELD and OLMD in patients matched for age, hernia level, and hernia location have not previously been compared.PURPOSETo compare OLMD with PELD in terms of the clinical outcome and the time to recovery.STUDY DESIGNRetrospective, matched cohort study.PATIENT SAMPLEData of all patients who underwent elective spinal surgery between January 2015 and June 2017 were extracted from the local database.OUTCOME MEASURESClinical outcomes were assessed using a 0-to-10 visual analogue scale (VAS) for lower back pain (LBP) and leg pain were scored before surgery and at postoperative day 1 and at each follow-up visit (3, 12, and 24 months), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI: 0%–100%), the length of hospital stay, time to resumption of work, recurrence of Lumbar disc herniation, procedure failures, and complications.METHODSThe participants were matched for age, disc level, and location of the herniated disk (central and paracentral vs. far-lateral). The participants’ mean±standard deviation age was 47.09±12.55 (range: 28–70). We compared the various clinical outcomes between the two groups to identify which procedure had better immediate and long-term functional outcomes. The differences in mortality and occurrence of postoperative complications were also compared in patients with PELD versus controls.RESULTSFifty-eight patients were enrolled (29 with PELD and 29 with OLMD). Both groups reported significant reductions in LBP and leg pain (p<0.01) postoperatively and an improvement in the ODI at 24 months postsurgery. The intergroup difference in the VAS for LBP at 1 day and 3 months was statistically significant (1.48 vs. 3.5, and 1.62 vs. 2.72, respectively; p=0.01 and 0.026, respectively) but the intergroup difference in the ODI was not. The mean length of hospital stay and the time to resumption of work were significantly shorter in the PELD group than in the OLMD group (2.55 vs. 3.21 days, and 4.45 vs. 6.62 weeks, respectively; p=0.037 and 0.01, respectively. There were no significant intergroup differences in terms of complications, recurrence, or procedure failures.CONCLUSIONSBoth PELD and OLMD can provide equivalent, satisfactory outcomes. However, PELD demonstrated several potential advantages, including more rapid recovery and lower LBP early on. Further large-scale, randomized studies with long-term follow-up are now warranted.