A meta-analysis of endoscopic discectomy versus open discectomy for symptomatic lumbar disk herniation
- 1.2k Downloads
The purpose of this study was to systematically compare the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic discectomy (ED) with open discectomy (OD) for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH).
A highly sensitive search strategy was used to identify all published randomized controlled trials up to August 2014. A criteria list taken from Koes et al. was used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included studies. The five questions that were recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group were used to evaluate the clinical relevance. Cochrane methodology was used for the results of this meta-analysis.
Nine relevant RCTs involving 1,092 patients were identified. Compared with OD, ED results in slightly better clinical outcomes which were evaluated by the Macnab criteria without clinical significance (ED group: 95.76 %; OD group: 80 %; OR: 3.72, 95 % CI: [0.76, 18.14], P = 0.10), a significantly greater patient satisfaction rate (ED group: 93.21 %; OD group: 86.57 %; OR: 2.19; 95 % CI: [1.09, 4.40]; P = 0.03), lower intraoperative blood loss volume (WMD: −123.71, 95 % CI: [−173.47, −73.95], P < 0.00001), and shorter length of hospital stay (WMD: −Table 2144.45, 95 % CI: [−239.54, −49.37], P = 0.003).
From the existing outcomes, ED surgery could be viewed as a sufficient and safe supplementation and alternative to standard open discectomy. The cost-effectiveness analyses still remain unproved from the existing data. More independent high-quality RCTs using sufficiently large sample sizes with cost-effectiveness analyses are needed.
KeywordsMeta-analysis Randomized controlled trial Open discectomy Endoscopic discectomy Symptomatic lumbar disk herniation
This study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No: 81201419). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
- 11.Higgins JP, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated September 2011]. The cochrane collaboration. Available from URL: http://handbook.cochrane.org/
- 19.Jun-liang LIU, Wan-xin ZHEN, Guo-yong GAO et al (2014) A prospective and controlled study of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy versus fenestration discectomy for lumbar disc herniation. Chin J Bone Joint 3:245–250Google Scholar
- 21.Garg B, Nagraja UB, Jayaswal A (2011) Microendoscopic versus open discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective randomised study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 19:30–34Google Scholar
- 27.Perez-Cruet MJ, Foley KT, Isaacs RE et al (2002) Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy: technique note. Neurosurgery 51:129–136Google Scholar