Objective: Endoscopic lumbar discectomy has been an alternative for treating lumbar disc herniation. Evidence-based study for the benefit zone of full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) is necessary. The study compared the complication risks between the FELD and open discectomy or microdiscectomy.
Methods: The literature search was from 4 online databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The meta-analysis of different study designs was conducted separately. Complication rates were considered primary outcomes, and the recurrence and revision rates were considered secondary outcomes.
Results: Six RCTs and thirteen cohort studies met the eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis was conducted separately. From the pooled RCT meta-analysis, the overall complication rates of FELD and open discectomy/microdiscectomy were 5.5% and 10.4%, respectively. The moderate-quality evidence suggested that FELD had a lower risk of overall complications (risk ratio [RR] = 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.31-0.98). There was no significant difference in specific complications and recurrence. The analysis of cohort studies revealed no significant difference in overall complications, but there was significant heterogeneity in the results. The risk of dural injury was significantly lower for FELD (RR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.22-0.96). The pooled meta-analysis from cohort studies suggested a higher risk of transient dysesthesia (RR = 3.70, 95% CI = 1.54-8.89), residual fragment (RR = 5.29, 95% CI = 2.67-10.45), and revision surgeries (RR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.12-2.08) for FELD.
Conclusions: The current evidence showed a lower risk of overall complications for FELD. The quality of evidence was moderate to low, and the risk of bias from the primary literature should be concerned.
Keywords: Complications; Endoscopic discectomy; Lumbar disc herniation; Microdiscectomy; Recurrence.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.