Conventional versus tubular microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation: A prospective randomized study

Abstract

Abstract Background: Microdiscectomy is a commonly performed surgical technique used to treat lumbar disc prolapse. A minimally invasive alternative called tubular discectomy is hypothesized to cause less tissue damage and result in a faster recovery compared to conventional discectomy. Previous studies have found similar pain resolution outcomes between two techniques, but they were underpowered and lacked data on differences in recovery time. Our study aims to compare functional outcomes, and assess differences in recovery time and perioperative complications between the two procedures. Materials and Methods: This prospective randomized study included 63 patients, divided into two groups. The preoperative evaluation was done by clinical examination and documenting Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores. Intra- and postoperative complications were also noted. Postoperative follow-up assessment was done at regular intervals up to 2 years. Results: Both groups showed a significant decrease in ODI, VAS leg and back scores following surgery, which continued to decline throughout the follow-up period. However, there was no significant difference in outcomes between the two treatment groups at each postoperative follow-up. There were also no significant differences in blood loss or intra- and postoperative complications. Patients who underwent tubular microdiscectomy had a significantly shorter hospital stay compared to conventional microdiscectomy. Conclusion: Both conventional and tubular microdiscectomy are effective means of treating disc herniation. While patients who underwent tubular microdiscectomy had a shorter hospital stay, the modest clinical benefits do not necessarily warrant the transition to a minimally invasive approach given the learning curve associated with the technique.