MICRODISCECTOMY AND PERCUTANEOUS ENDOSCOPIC LUMBAR DISCECTOMY: A BRIEF COMPARATIVE REVIEW
Abstract
Background: Microdiscectomy (MLD) has long been considered the standard surgical treatment for lumbar disc herniation. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative aimed at reducing tissue trauma and improving early postoperative recovery. Despite increasing adoption of endoscopic techniques, the relative advantages and limitations of these approaches remain debated [1–4].
Objective: This narrative review provides a concise comparison of microdiscectomy and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy based on available randomized controlled trials and comparative studies, with emphasis on clinical outcomes, perioperative recovery, complications, and practical considerations.
Methods: A focused narrative review of randomized controlled trials and comparative clinical studies evaluating MLD and PELD was performed. Outcomes of interest included pain relief, functional improvement, perioperative recovery, complication profiles, and technical considerations.
Results: Available evidence demonstrates comparable clinical outcomes between MLD and PELD in terms of pain relief and functional improvement [1–4]. PELD is associated with reduced postoperative tissue injury, less early postoperative back pain, and faster recovery [2,4,5]. Complication rates are similar overall, although the type of complications differs between techniques [1,4,14]. Outcomes after PELD are more strongly influenced by surgeon experience [19].
Conclusion: MLD and PELD provide comparable effectiveness in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. PELD offers advantages in early recovery, while MLD remains a reliable and widely applicable technique. These procedures should be regarded as complementary.
References
Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G. Full-endoscopic interlaminar and transforaminal lumbar discectomy versus conventional microsurgical technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Spine. 2008.
Gibson J, Subramanian A, Scott CE. A randomized controlled trial of transforaminal endoscopic discectomy vs microdiscectomy. European Spine Journal. 2017;26:847–856.
Chen Z, Zhang L, Dong J, Xie P, Liu B, Wang Q, Chen R, Feng F, Yang B, Shu T, et al. Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy compared with microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: 1-year results of an ongoing randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;28(3):300–310.
Meyer G, da Rocha ID, Cristante AF, Marcon RM, Coutinho TP, Torelli AG, Petersen PA, Letaif OB, de Barros Filho TE. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus microdiscectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: pain, disability, and complication rate—a randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Spine Surgery. 2020;14(1):72–78.
Pan L, Zhang P, Yin Q. Comparison of tissue damages caused by endoscopic lumbar discectomy and traditional lumbar discectomy: a randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Surgery. 2014;12(5):534–537.
Nie H, Zeng J, Song Y, Chen G, Wang X, Li Z, Jiang H, Kong Q. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L5–S1 disc herniation via an interlaminar vs transforaminal approach: a prospective randomized controlled study with 2-year follow-up. Spine. 2016;41:B30–B37.
Mo X, Shen J, Jiang W, Zhang X, Zhou N, Wang Y, Hu Z, Hao J. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar diskectomy for axillar herniation at L5–S1: transforaminal vs interlaminar approach—a prospective clinical trial. World Neurosurgery. 2019;125:e508–e514.
Cheng YP, Cheng XK, Wu H. Percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy vs transforaminal discectomy for L5–S1 calcified disc herniation: a comparative study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2022;23:5186.
Takebayashi K, Oshima Y, Fujita M, Inui T, Iwai H, Inanami H, Koga H. Comparison of interlaminar and transforaminal approaches for full-endoscopic discectomy for L4/5 lumbar disc herniation. Neurologia Medico-Chirurgica. 2023;63(7):313–320.
Choi KC, Kim JS, Ryu KS, Kang BU, Ahn Y, Lee S-H. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L5–S1 disc herniation: transforaminal vs interlaminar approach. Pain Physician. 2013;16:547–556.
Gao A, Yang H, Zhu L, Hu Z, Lu B, Jin Q, Wang Y, Gu X. Interlaminar vs transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic discectomy for L5–S1 herniation: a comparative study. Orthopaedic Surgery. 2021;13(1):63–70.
Jiang X, Zhou X, Xu N. Clinical effects of transforaminal vs interlaminar percutaneous endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(48):e13417.
Rajamani PA, Goparaju P, Kulkarni AG, Bhojraj SY, Rajasekaran S, Chhabra HS, Acharya S, Rajamani A, Nene A, Shetty AP, et al. Two-year outcomes and complications of various techniques of lumbar discectomy: a multicentric retrospective study. World Neurosurgery. 2021;156:e319–e328.
Yin G, Wang C, Liu S-Q. Comparative analysis of therapeutic efficiency and radiographic measurement between transforaminal and interlaminar percutaneous endoscopic discectomy. Turk Neurosurg. 2021;31(6):857–865.
Zhang G, Xie X, Liu N. Efficacy of full-endoscopic interlaminar and transforaminal discectomy for lumbar disc herniation. Acta Ortopédica Brasileira. 2023;31(5):e263326.
Zhao Q, Xiao L, Wu Z, Liu C, Zhang Y. Comparison of the efficacy of fully endoscopic spine surgery via transforaminal vs interlaminar approaches in L4/5 disc herniation. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2022;17:3282.
Ding Z, Tao Y, et al. Clinical outcomes of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy vs fenestration discectomy in lumbar disc herniation. J Int Transl Med. 2017;5(1):29–33.
Amato M, Aprile B, de Oliveira C, et al. Radiation exposure during percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: interlaminar vs transforaminal. Arq Bras Neurocir. 2019;38(1):31–35.
Morgenstern R, Morgenstern C, Yeung AT. Learning curve in foraminal endoscopic discectomy: experience needed to achieve 90% success. SAS Journal. 2007;1(3):100–107.
Abreu PG, Lourenço JA, Romero C, et al. Endoscopic treatment of spondylodiscitis: systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2022.
Khan MM, Chaurasia B. Artificial intelligence in spine surgery: preparation of predictive models. Ann Med Surg. 2025;87:171–176.
Copyright (c) 2026 Kacper Domisiewicz, Agnieszka Walczak, Magdalena Domisiewicz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles are published in open-access and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Hence, authors retain copyright to the content of the articles.
CC BY 4.0 License allows content to be copied, adapted, displayed, distributed, re-published or otherwise re-used for any purpose including for adaptation and commercial use provided the content is attributed.
