Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 151, Issue 9, pp 1027–1033 | Cite as

A new endoscopic spine system: the first results with “Easy GO”

  • Joachim M. K. OertelEmail author
  • Yvonne Mondorf
  • Michael R. Gaab
Clinical Article



Endoscopy meets increasing interest by spine surgeons. However, endoscopic results are diverging and many spinal endoscopic systems are difficult to apply and handle.


A system for endoscopic spinal surgery was developed where the main goals were: (1) easy intraoperative handling with standard microsurgical techniques, and (2) avoidance of a prolonged learning curve. The system consists of various dilators, two different work sheaths, two different 30° endoscopes, and an endoscope holder.


Between August 2006 and April 2008, 80 spinal surgeries were performed in degenerative lumbar spine cases (mean age 52 years, range 22-85 years). Intraoperatively, the system was easy to handle. Standard microsurgical techniques were used. Mean surgical time scored 75 min (range 28–168 min). There was no intraoperative complication, no new postoperative deficit and no infection. In four cases, the endoscope was abandoned and the procedure microsurgically continued (5%). At the last follow-up (mean FU 10 months, range 2 weeks up to 21 months), 89% of the patient were pain free (71/80). Four patients suffered from recurrent disc prolapses (5%). Another five patients (6%) were not satisfied without evidence of re-prolaps. Of those who answered the questionnaire of patient satisfaction, 83% (45/54) considered their postoperative status as excellent, 13% as good (7/54), 4% were not satisfied (2/54).


The Easy GO system was easy and safe to handle with the standard bimanual microsurgical technique and good postoperative results. Further studies are needed to show a significant advantage of the technique in comparison to the microsurgical standard procedure.


Endoscopic technique Lumbar disc surgery “Easy GO” system Interlaminar approach Lateral approach 



The authors gratefully acknowledge the expert assistance in requiring the patient data of Mrs. Bode.

Disclosure / Disclaimer

The authors have no conflict of interest concerning the material or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper. MR Gaab is a consultant to the Karl Storz company.

Supplementary material


(MPG 15.3 mb)


  1. 1.
    Caspar W (1977) A new surgical procedure for lumbar disc herniation causing less tissue damage through a microsurgical approach. Adv Neurosurg 4:74–80Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Destandau J (2004) Neurochirurgie 50:6–10. Technical features of endoscopic surgery for lumbar disc herniation: 191 patients. French. doi: 10.1016/S0028-3770(04)98300-2
  3. 3.
    Dollinger V, Obwegeser AA, Gabl M, Lackner P, Koller M, Galiano K (2008) Sporting activity following discectomy for lumbar disc herniation. Orthopedics 31:756. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20080801-05 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foley KT, Smith MM, Rampersaud YR (1999) Microendoscopic approach to far-lateral lumbar disc herniation. Neurosurg Focus 7(5). doi: 10.3171/foc.1999.7.5.8 Article 5
  5. 5.
    Huang TJ, Hsu RW, Li YY, Cheng CC (2005) Less systemic cytokine response in patients following microendoscopic versus open lumbar discectomy. J Orthop Res 23:406–411. doi: 10.1016/j.orthres.2004.08.010 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ikuta K, Tono O, Tanaka T, Arima J, Nakano S, Sasaki K et al (2007) Surgical complications of microendoscopic procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 50:145–149. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-985152 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jang JS, An SH, Lee SH (2006) Transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic discectomy in the treatment of foraminal and extraforaminal lumbar disc herniations. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:338–343. doi: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000204500.14719.2e PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Katayama Y, Matsuyama Y, Yoshihara H, Sakai Y, Nakamura H, Nakashima S et al (2006) Comparison of surgical outcomes between macro discectomy and micro discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective randomized study with surgery performed by the same spine surgeon. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:344–347. doi: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000211201.93125.1c PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Gejo R, Tsuji H (1998) Preventive measures of back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery in rats. Spine 23:2282–2288. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199811010-00006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H (1996) Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine 21:941–944. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199604150-00007 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H (1997) Changes in serum creatine phosphokinase MM isoenzyme after lumbar spine surgery. Spine 22:1018–1023. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199705010-00015 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim JM, Lee SH, Ahn Y, Yoon DH, Lee CD, Lim ST (2007) Recurrence after successful percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 50:82–85. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-982504 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim MJ, Lee SH, Jung ES, Son BG, Choi ES, Shin JH (2007) Targeted percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic diskectomy in 295 patients: comparison with results of microscopic diskectomy. Surg Neurol 68:623–631. doi: 10.1016/j.surneu.2006.12.051 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim MS, Park KW, Hwang C, Lee YK, Koo KH, Chang BS et al (2009) Recurrence rate of lumbar disc herniation after open discectomy in active young men. Spine 34:24–29. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818f9116 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kotil K, Tunckale T, Tatar Z, Koldas M, Kural A, Bilge T (2007) Serum creatine phosphokinase activity and histological changes in the multifidus muscle: a prospective randomized controlled comparative study of discectomy with or without retraction. J Neurosurg Spine 6:121–125. doi: 10.3171/spi.2007.6.2.121 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee SH, Kang BU, Ahn Y, Choi G, Choi YG, Ahn KU et al (2006) Operative failure of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a radiological analysis of 55 cases. Spine 31:E285–E290. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000216446.13205.7a PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Love J (1939) Removal of protruded intervertebral disc without laminectomy. Proc Staff Meet Mayo Clin 14:800Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McGirt MJ, Ambrossi GL, Datoo G, Sciubba DM, Witham TF, Wolinsky JP et al (2009) Recurrent disc herniation and long-term back pain after primary lumbar discectomy: review of outcomes reported for limited versus aggressive disc removal. Neurosurgery 64:338–344. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000337574.58662.E2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mixter WJ, Barr JS (1934) Rupture of the intervertebral disc with involvement of the spinal cord. N Engl J Med 211:210–214Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oztürk C, Tezer M, Aydogan M, Sarier M, Hamzaoglu A (2006) Posterior endoscopic discectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Acta Orthop Belg 72:347–352PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Righesso O, Falavigna A, Avanzi O (2007) Comparison of open discectomy with microendoscopic discectomy in lumbar disc herniations: results of a randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery 61:545–549. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000290901.00320.F5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ruetten S, Komp M, Godolias G (2006) A new full-endoscopic technique for the interlaminar operation of lumbar disc herniations using 6-mm endoscopes: prospective 2-year results in 331 patients. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 49:80–87. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-932172 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G (2007) Use of newly developed instruments and endoscopes: full-endoscopic resection of lumbar disc herniations via the interlaminar and lateral transforaminal approach. J Neurosurg Spine 6:521–530. doi: 10.3171/spi.2007.6.6.2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ryang YM, Oertel MF, Mayfrank L, Gilsbach JM, Rohde V (2007) Transmuscular trocar technique: minimal access spine surgery for far lateral lumbar disc herniations. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 50:304–307. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-990292 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sasaoka R, Nakamura H, Konishi S, Nagayama R, Suzuki E, Terai H et al (2006) Objective assessment of reduced invasiveness in MED. Compared with conventional one-level laminotomy. Eur Spine J 15:577–582. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-0912-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schick U, Döhnert J, Richter A, König A, Vitzthum HE (2002) Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy versus open surgery: an intraoperative EMG study. Eur Spine J 11:20–26. doi: 10.1007/s005860100315 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shin DA, Kim KN, Shin HC, Yoon DH (2008) The efficacy of microendoscopic discectomy in reducing iatrogenic muscle injury. J Neurosurg Spine 8:39–43. doi: 10.3171/SPI-08/01/039 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wu X, Zhuang S, Mao Z, Chen H (2006) Microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: surgical technique and outcome in 873 consecutive cases. Spine 31:2689–2694. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000244615.43199.07 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joachim M. K. Oertel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yvonne Mondorf
    • 2
  • Michael R. Gaab
    • 2
  1. 1.Neurochirurgische Klinik und PoliklinikUniversitaetsmedizin, Johannes-Gutenberg-UniversitaetMainzGermany
  2. 2.Neurochirurgische Klinik, Nordstadtkrankenhaus, Klinikum Region HannoverAffiliated Hospital Hannover Medical SchoolHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations