A Two-year Outcome of Various Techniques of Discectomy On Complications: A Multicentric Retrospective Study

Objective Various techniques of performing lumbar discectomy are prevalent, each having its rationale and claimed benefits. The authors ventured to assess the total complication rate of lumbar discectomy as well as the complication rates of individual complications, namely CSF leaks, superficial wound infections, deep wound infections, recurrence rates, re-operation rates, and wrong level surgery. Methods This was a retrospective study of patients operated using open discectomy (OD), microdiscectomy (MD), microendoscopic discectomy (MED), interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD), transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD), and Destandau techniques (DT) with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The inclusion criteria were age>15 years, failed conservative treatment for 4-6 weeks, and the involvement of a single lumbar level. Results There is no statistically significant association between surgical technique and complications. The total complication rate was 12.89% in 946 operated cases. The most common complication was recurrence (5.81%), followed by re-operation (3.69%), CSF leak (1.90%), wrong level surgery (0.63%), superficial infection (0.52%) and deep infection (0.31%). There were minor differences in the incidence of complications between techniques. Conclusion This is the first study to compare the complication rates of all the prevalent discectomy techniques across the globe in 946 patients. Although there were minor differences in incidences of complications between individual techniques, there was no statistical significance. The various rates of individual complications provide a reference value for future studies related to complications following discectomy

AOSpine Consensus Paper on Nomenclature for Working-Channel Endoscopic Spinal Procedures

Study Design: International consensus paper on a unified nomenclature for full-endoscopic spine surgery. Objectives: Minimally invasive endoscopic spinal procedures have undergone rapid development during the past decade. Evolution of working-channel endoscopes and surgical instruments as well as innovation in surgical techniques have expanded the types of spinal pathology that can be addressed. However, there is in the literature a heterogeneous nomenclature defining approach corridors and procedures, and this lack of common language has hampered communication between endoscopic spine surgeons, patients, hospitals, and insurance providers. Methods: The current report summarizes the nomenclature reported for working-channel endoscopic procedures that address cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spinal pathology. Results: We propose a uniform system that defines the working-channel endoscope (full-endoscopic), approach corridor (anterior, posterior, interlaminar, transforaminal), spinal segment (cervical, thoracic, lumbar), and procedure performed (eg, discectomy, foraminotomy). We suggest the following nomenclature for the most common full-endoscopic procedures: posterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy (PECF), transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD), transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD), transforaminal lumbar foraminotomy (TELF), interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD), interlaminar endoscopic lateral recess decompression (IE-LRD), and lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD). Conclusions: We believe that it is critical to delineate a consensus nomenclature to facilitate uniformity of working-channel endoscopic procedures within academic scholarship. This will hopefully facilitate development, standardization of procedures, teaching, and widespread acceptance of full-endoscopic spinal procedures