Neurospine· 2026Q1
Interlaminar Versus Transforaminal Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Structured Debate and International Practice Patterns
- 3citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy approaches, interlaminar (IELD) and transforaminal (TELD), are complementary, with selection best guided by lesion anatomy, pathology, and surgeon expertise rather than presumed superiority.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Neither interlaminar (IELD) nor transforaminal (TELD) full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy demonstrates universal superiority.
- Short- and intermediate-term clinical outcomes for both approaches are largely convergent.
- Surgeon preferences favor TELD for foraminal/extraforaminal lesions (up to 91.3%) and IELD for central/paracentral L5-S1 disease (88.4%).
- Consensus on approach selection was not reached for 13 scenarios, particularly those involving transitional levels and complex pathology.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to synthesize evidence comparing transforaminal (TELD) and interlaminar (IELD) full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy and characterize surgeons’ stated approach preferences across anatomical scenarios.Methods: We conducted a structured narrative (nonsystematic) synthesis across 7 domains using PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus through July 2026. Pro-TELD and pro-IELD advocacy drafts were prepared independently; the corresponding author adjudicated domain-level verdicts without drafting either perspective. An international cross-sectional survey used convenience and snowball sampling to assess 172 spine surgeons’ preferences across 25 scenarios developed independently of the Kotheeranurak et al. algorithm; survey findings were subsequently compared with the algorithm. Consensus was predefined as ≥ 70% agreement; experience-based analyses were exploratory.Results: The evidence showed no universal superiority. Short- and intermediate-term clinical outcomes were largely convergent, long-term comparative outcomes remained unresolved, complication profiles were partially resolved, and cost-effectiveness was context-dependent. Twelve of 25 survey scenarios reached consensus. Survey preferences were concordant with the Kotheeranurak et al. benchmark algorithm in 6 of 9 compared scenario groups; 1 was discordant and 2 remained below the consensus threshold. TELD was favored for selected foraminal/extraforaminal lesions (up to 91.3%) and directionally preferred at upper-lumbar levels, whereas IELD was favored for central/paracentral L5–S1 disease (88.4%) and selected migrated lesions. Thirteen scenarios, predominantly involving transitional levels and complex calcified or migrated pathology, did not reach consensus. Experience-related patterns were exploratory and did not consistently favor either corridor.Conclusion: TELD and IELD are complementary corridors. Selection should reflect lesion anatomy, pathology, surgeon expertise, and healthcare context rather than presumed overall superiority.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Neurospine, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Pathology and Forensic Medicine
Pathology and Forensic MedicineMedicine