Interlaminar Versus Transforaminal Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Structured Debate and International Practice Patterns

Objective: This study aimed to synthesize evidence comparing transforaminal (TELD) and interlaminar (IELD) full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy and characterize surgeons’ stated approach preferences across anatomical scenarios.Methods: We conducted a structured narrative (nonsystematic) synthesis across 7 domains using PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus through July 2026. Pro-TELD and pro-IELD advocacy drafts were prepared independently; the corresponding author adjudicated domain-level verdicts without drafting either perspective. An international cross-sectional survey used convenience and snowball sampling to assess 172 spine surgeons’ preferences across 25 scenarios developed independently of the Kotheeranurak et al. algorithm; survey findings were subsequently compared with the algorithm. Consensus was predefined as ≥ 70% agreement; experience-based analyses were exploratory.Results: The evidence showed no universal superiority. Short- and intermediate-term clinical outcomes were largely convergent, long-term comparative outcomes remained unresolved, complication profiles were partially resolved, and cost-effectiveness was context-dependent. Twelve of 25 survey scenarios reached consensus. Survey preferences were concordant with the Kotheeranurak et al. benchmark algorithm in 6 of 9 compared scenario groups; 1 was discordant and 2 remained below the consensus threshold. TELD was favored for selected foraminal/extraforaminal lesions (up to 91.3%) and directionally preferred at upper-lumbar levels, whereas IELD was favored for central/paracentral L5–S1 disease (88.4%) and selected migrated lesions. Thirteen scenarios, predominantly involving transitional levels and complex calcified or migrated pathology, did not reach consensus. Experience-related patterns were exploratory and did not consistently favor either corridor.Conclusion: TELD and IELD are complementary corridors. Selection should reflect lesion anatomy, pathology, surgeon expertise, and healthcare context rather than presumed overall superiority.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Neurospine
Published
2026-10-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.26521606.0803
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
13.72
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Interlaminar Versus Transforaminal Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Structured Debate and International Practice Patterns

Thorsten Jentzsch, Cristian Corrêa, Worawat Limthongkul, Jae‐Joong Kim et al.
3 citations
Neurospine
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
13.72
article

Interlaminar Versus Transforaminal Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Structured Debate and International Practice Patterns

Thorsten Jentzsch, Cristian Corrêa, Worawat Limthongkul, Jae‐Joong Kim, Mazda Farshad, Marcus Vinicius Serra, Weerasak Singhatanadgige, Elmer Jose Arevalo Meceda, Phattareeya Pholprajug, Muhammed Assous, Rohit Akshay Kavishwar, Prashanth J. Rao, Suthipas Pongmanee, Vit Kotheeranurak, Frank Hassel, Pramod V. Lokhande, Chien‐Min Chen, Choo Heng Tan, Hyun-Jin Ma, Surachat Jaroenwareekul, Saqib Hasan, Thanapol Ultarnpatumros, Qingbing Meng, Kristiyan Komitov
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to synthesize evidence comparing transforaminal (TELD) and interlaminar (IELD) full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy and characterize surgeons’ stated approach preferences across anatomical scenarios.Methods: We conducted a structured narrative (nonsystematic) synthesis across 7 domains using PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus through July 2026. Pro-TELD and pro-IELD advocacy drafts were prepared independently; the corresponding author adjudicated domain-level verdicts without drafting either perspective. An international cross-sectional survey used convenience and snowball sampling to assess 172 spine surgeons’ preferences across 25 scenarios developed independently of the Kotheeranurak et al. algorithm; survey findings were subsequently compared with the algorithm. Consensus was predefined as ≥ 70% agreement; experience-based analyses were exploratory.Results: The evidence showed no universal superiority. Short- and intermediate-term clinical outcomes were largely convergent, long-term comparative outcomes remained unresolved, complication profiles were partially resolved, and cost-effectiveness was context-dependent. Twelve of 25 survey scenarios reached consensus. Survey preferences were concordant with the Kotheeranurak et al. benchmark algorithm in 6 of 9 compared scenario groups; 1 was discordant and 2 remained below the consensus threshold. TELD was favored for selected foraminal/extraforaminal lesions (up to 91.3%) and directionally preferred at upper-lumbar levels, whereas IELD was favored for central/paracentral L5–S1 disease (88.4%) and selected migrated lesions. Thirteen scenarios, predominantly involving transitional levels and complex calcified or migrated pathology, did not reach consensus. Experience-related patterns were exploratory and did not consistently favor either corridor.Conclusion: TELD and IELD are complementary corridors. Selection should reflect lesion anatomy, pathology, surgeon expertise, and healthcare context rather than presumed overall superiority.

NeurospineVol. 23(4)
Chulalongkorn University (TH), Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN), King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital (TH), Clínica Las Condes (CL), University Hospital of Zurich (CH), University of the East Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center (PH), Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital and Research Center (IN), Jupiter Medical Center (US), Universitätsklinik Balgrist (CH), National Neuroscience Institute (SG), Shanghai First People's Hospital (CN), Changhua Christian Hospital (TW), The Catholic University of Korea Seoul St. Mary's Hospital (KR), Rayong Hospital (TH), Bicol Medical Center (PH), Chiang Mai University (TH), Catholic University of Korea (KR), Macquarie University (AU)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
13.72
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
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.

Laika access coming soon