Neurospine· 2026Q1· Review
Inside-Out Versus Outside-In Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: A Structured Debate and International Practice Patterns
- 1citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
A structured debate and international survey of 78 surgeons reveal mixed evidence for inside-out versus outside-in transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD), with no general recommendation supported. The survey favored outside-in TELD (85.9% acceptance) for specific scenarios like foraminal access and migrated fragments, but this reflects a panel imbalanced towards outside-in practice.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Two TELD techniques, inside-out and outside-in, were debated and surveyed among international experts.
- Literature review resulted in mixed verdicts, with 3 of 7 domains unresolved due to insufficient comparative studies.
- An international survey of 78 surgeons showed 85.9% acceptance of the outside-in technique versus 43.6% for inside-out.
- The survey favored outside-in TELD for foraminal access, migrated fragments, and nerve safety, but the panel was imbalanced towards outside-in practitioners.
- No general recommendation for either TELD technique is supported by current evidence.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) is performed by 2 techniques that differ in where the working corridor is first established: inside-out docks within the disc and works outward; outside-in establishes the corridor in the foramen, typically by foraminoplasty, and enters the disc last. This review tested each technique’s arguments against the literature and described current expert opinion. The literature component was a narrative, nonsystematic structured debate across 7 domains, with one author arguing each position and a joint reconciliation assigning verdicts from a predefined taxonomy. A single-round structured international expert-opinion survey of 78 endoscopic spine surgeons from 23 countries was analyzed against a prespecified 70% agreement threshold. Seven domains yielded 8 verdicts because clinical outcomes were judged separately at short and long term: 2 resolved as mixed, 2 as context-dependent, 1 conditional on patient phenotype, and 3 unresolved for lack of comparative studies. The panel was imbalanced: 57.1% practiced predominantly outside-in and 6.5% predominantly inside-out. Ten statements met the threshold: acceptance of outside-in (85.9%; inside-out 43.6%), its preference in all 4 case scenarios and for foraminal or bony access, migrated fragments, annulus and nucleus preservation, and exiting-nerve safety, and neutrality on cost-effectiveness. Case 1 reached 70.1% among 77 decided respondents but 69.2% of the full panel of 78. Current evidence does not support a general recommendation for either technique, and the survey describes the preferences of a predominantly outside-in panel rather than establishing superiority. Selection should follow pathology, foraminal anatomy, and surgeon expertise.
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