Full Endoscopic versus Microscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: To compare safety, recovery metrics, and patient-reported outcomes between full endoscopic discectomy (FED) and microscopic discectomy (MSD) for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Full-endoscopic techniques aim to reduce access-related soft tissue injury compared with conventional MSD but rely on fluoroscopic guidance and constrained working corridors. Prior syntheses frequently pooled heterogeneous minimally invasive approaches or non-randomized studies, limiting interpretability for contemporary practice. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 16 February 2026 for randomized controlled trials comparing FED with MSD in adults with LDH. Prespecified outcomes included complications, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and perioperative/recovery measures. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed throughout. Risk of bias (RoB 2) and certainty of evidence (GRADE) were assessed. RESULTS: Seventeen trials including 2238 patients (FED 1070; MSD 1168) were analyzed (mean follow-up 14.6-14.7 mo). Leg pain trajectories were comparable. Back VAS favored FED at 1 year (MD -0.18; 95% CI: -0.35--0.01) and ODI at 2 years (MD -5.72; 95% CI: -11.24--0.21). FED reduced blood loss (MD -38.62 mL; 95% CI: -67.69--9.54) and return-to-work time (MD -22.68 d; 95% CI: -32.85--12.50), but increased radiation exposure (MD 0.92; 95% CI: 0.84-1.00). Operative time and length of stay were similar. FED lowered postoperative infection (RR 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.78), poor wound healing (RR 0.25, 95% CI: 0.07-0.96), and hematoma (RR 0.47; 95% CI: 0.23-0.94). Other non-wound-related complications did not differ. Risk of bias was low-to-moderate; certainty of evidence was moderate. CONCLUSION: FED and MSD provide comparable decompressive efficacy and patient-reported outcomes. FED reduces wound-related morbidity and may accelerate return to work, at the cost of greater fluoroscopic exposure, without consistent long-term superiority in pain or disability.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Spine
Published
2026-06-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000005753
Primary Topic
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Full Endoscopic versus Microscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation

Jack Jallo, Srinivas Prasad, Shiva A. Nischal, Advith Sarikonda et al.
Spine
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
article

Full Endoscopic versus Microscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation

Jack Jallo, Srinivas Prasad, Shiva A. Nischal, Advith Sarikonda, A Dubb, James S. Harrop, Kush M Kale, Shaan Patel, Kevin Hines, Danyal Quraishi
article en

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: To compare safety, recovery metrics, and patient-reported outcomes between full endoscopic discectomy (FED) and microscopic discectomy (MSD) for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Full-endoscopic techniques aim to reduce access-related soft tissue injury compared with conventional MSD but rely on fluoroscopic guidance and constrained working corridors. Prior syntheses frequently pooled heterogeneous minimally invasive approaches or non-randomized studies, limiting interpretability for contemporary practice. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 16 February 2026 for randomized controlled trials comparing FED with MSD in adults with LDH. Prespecified outcomes included complications, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and perioperative/recovery measures. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed throughout. Risk of bias (RoB 2) and certainty of evidence (GRADE) were assessed. RESULTS: Seventeen trials including 2238 patients (FED 1070; MSD 1168) were analyzed (mean follow-up 14.6-14.7 mo). Leg pain trajectories were comparable. Back VAS favored FED at 1 year (MD -0.18; 95% CI: -0.35--0.01) and ODI at 2 years (MD -5.72; 95% CI: -11.24--0.21). FED reduced blood loss (MD -38.62 mL; 95% CI: -67.69--9.54) and return-to-work time (MD -22.68 d; 95% CI: -32.85--12.50), but increased radiation exposure (MD 0.92; 95% CI: 0.84-1.00). Operative time and length of stay were similar. FED lowered postoperative infection (RR 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.78), poor wound healing (RR 0.25, 95% CI: 0.07-0.96), and hematoma (RR 0.47; 95% CI: 0.23-0.94). Other non-wound-related complications did not differ. Risk of bias was low-to-moderate; certainty of evidence was moderate. CONCLUSION: FED and MSD provide comparable decompressive efficacy and patient-reported outcomes. FED reduces wound-related morbidity and may accelerate return to work, at the cost of greater fluoroscopic exposure, without consistent long-term superiority in pain or disability.

Spine
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (US), University of Oxford (GB), Neurological Surgery (US), Drexel University (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.