SCIRP Mobile Website
Paper Submission

Why Us? >>

  • - Open Access
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Free promotion service
  • - More citations
  • - Search engine friendly

Free SCIRP Newsletters>>

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from SCIRP.


Contact Us >>

Article citations


Kulkarni, A.G., Bassi, A. and Dhruv, A. (2014) Micro-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: Technique and Results of 188 Cases. Indian Journal of Orthopedics, 48, 81-87.

has been cited by the following article:

  • TITLE: Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy versus Conventional Open Discectomy: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial

    AUTHORS: Ahmad Abdalla, Hazem Othman

    KEYWORDS: Lumbar Disc Prolapse, Open Discectomy, Endoscopic Discectomy

    JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Modern Neurosurgery, Vol.9 No.2, March 18, 2019

    ABSTRACT: Introduction: The majority of series considered the conventional open discectomy as the gold standard for the treatment of lumbar disc prolapse. Despite of the popularity of the lumbar endoscopic discectomy nowadays, many neurosurgeons still prefer conventional open discectomy. Purpose: Our study has been designed to compare between percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and conventional open discectomy; regarding surgical results, complications, clinical and functional outcomes. Patients and Methods: This study is a clinical prospective randomized controlled trial conducted upon 30 patients suffering from prolapsed lumbar disc, from December 2016 to May 2018. Those patients were divided randomly into 2 groups, 15 patients each. One group treated by percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy (PELD) and the other group treated by conventional open discectomy (COD). Operative time, wound size, Intraoperative blood loss, Intraoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, Postoperative complication and the results of visual analogue score (VAS) and modified MacNab’s criteria were assessed. Results: This study included 30 patients (18 males and 12 females). The mean age was about 35 years. Although, there was postoperative improvement of the VAS and MacNab’s criteria in the two groups, there was no statistically significant difference between the preoperative and postoperative VAS of low back pain and radicular pain for the two groups in the follow up period. Conclusion: Both techniques give good results for patients; each technique has some advantages over the other.