Comparison of biportal endoscopic and microscopic tubular paraspinal approach for foraminal and extraforaminal lumbar disc herniation.

Abstract

Objective: Foraminal and extraforaminal lumbar disc herniation (FELDH) is an important pathological condition that can lead to lumbar radiculopathy. The paraspinal muscle-splitting approach introduced by Reulen and Wiltse is a reasonable surgical technique. Minimally invasive procedures using a tubular retractor system have also been introduced. However, surgical treatment is considered more challenging for FELDH than for central or subarticular lumbar disc herniations (LDHs). Some researchers have proposed uniportal extraforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy through a posterolateral approach as an alternative for FELDH, but heterogeneous clinical results have been reported. Recently, the biportal endoscopic (BE) paraspinal approach has been suggested as an alternative. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of BE and microscopic tubular (MT) paraspinal approaches for decompressive foraminotomy and lumbar discectomy (paraLD) in patients with FELDH.

Methods: Ninety-one consecutive patients with unilateral lumbar radiculopathy and FELDH underwent paraLD. Demographic and perioperative data were collected. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for spinal disability, and the modified Macnab criteria for patient satisfaction. Postoperative complications and reoperation rates were also evaluated.

Results: In total, 76 patients were included in the final analysis. Among them, 43 underwent BE paraLD (group A) and the remaining 33 underwent MT paraLD (group B). The demographic and preoperative data were not statistically different between the groups. All patients showed significant improvements in VAS back, VAS leg, and ODI scores compared with baseline values (p < 0.05). The improvement in VAS back scores was significantly better in group A than in group B on postoperative day 2 (p < 0.001). However, all clinical parameters were comparable between the two groups after postoperative year 1 (p > 0.05). According to the modified Macnab criteria, 86.1% and 72.7% of the patients had excellent or good outcomes in groups A and B, respectively. No intergroup differences were observed (p = 0.367). In addition, there were no differences in the total operation time or amount of surgical drainage. Postoperative complications were not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.301); however, reoperation rates were significantly higher in group B (p = 0.035).

Conclusions: BE paraLD is an effective treatment for FELDH and is an alternative to MT paraLD. In particular, BE paraLD has advantages of early improvement in postoperative back pain and low reoperation rates.