Body Image and Cosmesis after Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Conventional Open Microdiscectomy for Sciatica

Study Design: Randomized controlled trial Objective: Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) was introduced as a less invasive procedure to treat sciatica. Even though the PTED has a small scar size, it is unknown if PTED also leads to better scar-related patient-reported outcomes. Therefore, we aimed to compare scar-related outcomes between patients undergoing PTED vs open microdiscectomy. Methods: Patients with at least 6 weeks of radiating leg pain were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to PTED or open microdiscectomy. Scar-related patient-reported outcomes were measured using the Body Image Score (BIS), Cosmesis Scale (CS) and a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) on scar esthetic. Results: Of the 530 included patients, 286 patients underwent PTED and 244 underwent open microdiscectomy as allocated. At 12 months of follow-up, 95% of the patients had data available. At 12 months, the BIS was 6.2 ± 1.7 in the PTED-group and 6.6 ± 1.9 in the open microdiscectomy group (between-group difference.4, 95% CI.2 to.7). CS was 21.3 ± 3.0 in the PTED-group and 18.6 ± 3.4 in the open microdiscectomy group (between-group difference −2.7, 95% CI −3.1 to −2.3). Average NRS for scar esthetic was 9.2 ± 1.3 and 7.8 ± 1.6 in the PTED and open microdiscectomy groups, respectively (between-group difference −1.4, 95% CI −1.6 to −1.2) Conclusions: PTED leads to a higher self-rated scar esthetic as compared to open microdiscectomy, while self-reported body image seems to be comparable between both groups. Therefore, from an esthetic point, PTED seems to be the preferred technique to treat sciatica.</p

Assessing the Learning Process of Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy for Sciatica

Objective: Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) is gaining popular-ity by both surgeons and patients as a less invasive treatment option for sciatica. Concerns, however, exist for its learning curve. No previous study has assessed the learning process of PTED. Hereby we present the learning process of 3 surgeons learning PTED. Methods: This analysis was conducted alongside a multicenter randomized controlled trial. After attending a cadaveric workshop, 3 spine-dedicated surgeons started performing PTED, initially under the supervision of a senior surgeon. After each 5 cases, and up to case 20, the learning process was evaluated using the validated questionnaires (objective structured assessment of technical skills [OSATS], global operative assessment of laparoscopic skills [GOALS]) and a 10-step checklist specifically developed for PTED. Results: In total, 3 learning curve surgeons performed a total of 161 cases. Based on self-assessment, surgeons improved mostly in the domains “time and motion,” “respect for tis-sue,” and “knowledge and handling of instruments.” Learning curve surgeons were more able to detect differences in performances on the OSATS than the senior surgeon. Based on the GOALS, the biggest improvements could be seen in “depth-perception” and “autono-my.” Based on the 10-item specific checklist, all surgeons performed all 10 steps by case 10, while only 1 surgeon performed all steps adequately by case 15. Conclusion: Based on these study results, PTED appears to be successfully adopted step-wise by 3 spine-dedicated surgeons. From 15 cases on, most steps are performed adequate-ly. However, more cases might be necessary to achieve good clinical results. Validated tools are needed to determine the cutoff when a surgeon should be able to perform PTED inde-pendently

Surgeons Learning Curve of Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy for Sciatica

Objective: Full-endoscopic spine surgery is gaining interest as a less-invasive alternative to treat sciatica caused by a lumbar disc herniation. Concerns, however, exist with the learning curve as percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) appears to be more difficult to be performed compared to other techniques. In this study, the clinical outcomes during and after the learning curve are presented of 3 surgeons naïve to PTED. Methods: In the first phase of a randomized controlled, noninferiority trial comparing PTED with microdiscectomy, 3 surgeons were trained in the PTED-procedure by a senior surgeon. After performing up to 20 cases under supervision, they started performing PTED on their own. Results of the early cases were compared to the later cases (>20). Further-more, complications and reoperations were compared. Finally, differences in clinical outcomes between surgeons were compared. Results: At 12 months of follow-up, 87% of the patients had follow-up data available. In general, there were no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes between the early and later PTED cases. Furthermore, outcomes of the early PTED cases were comparable to the outcomes of microdiscectomy, while the later PTED cases had small, but more favorable outcomes compared to microdiscectomy. Two learning curve surgeons had substantially higher rates of reoperations within 1 year, compared to the senior surgeon or the microdiscectomy group. Duration of surgery was also longer for all learning curve surgeons. Finally, when comparing clinical outcomes of patients undergoing PTED versus microdiscectomy, there appears to be some statistically significant differences in outcomes compared between the senior and 3 learning curve surgeons. Conclusion: PTED appears to be safe to be adopted by surgeons naïve to the procedure when they are initially supervised by an experienced senior surgeon. Duration of surgery and risk of repeated surgery are increased during the learning curve, but patient-reported outcomes of the early PTED cases are similar to the outcomes of later PTED cases, and similar to the outcomes of microdiscectomy cases. This study underlines the need for an experienced mentor for surgeons to safely adopt PTED