Conventional Microdiscectomy Versus Tubular Microdiscectomy, A Retrospective Comparative Study

Background: Lumbar disc prolapse (LDH), which affects millions of people worldwide, is considered one of the most frequent triggers of pain in the lower back and radicular leg. Aim of Study: This study aimed to compare convention-al microdiscectomy and tubular microdiscectomy according to postoperative radiculopathy, back pain, hospital stay, blood loss, complication rate, and return to work (recovery). Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective compara-tive study performed on 20 cases who had surgical intervention for lumbar disc prolapse by either conventional microdiscec-tomy or a tubular microdiscectomy system at Beni-Suef Uni-versity Teaching Hospitals, Neurosurgery Department, during February 2025, for 1 month to collect and analyze the data. Results: A statistically insignificant variance has been ob-served among the groups according to pre- and post-operative Roland Disability Questionnaire scores, preoperative back pain and radiculopathy VAS scores, disc removal weight, blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complications, or overall re-covery (p>0.05). However, a significant variation was observed in postoperative back pain VAS scores, as well as operation time and hospital stay (p<0.05), indicating variations in surgical efficiency and recovery duration. Conclusion: The study found insignificant distinctions among groups in demographic factors, clinical characteristics, pre-operative Roland Disability Questionnaire scores, pre-op-erative back pain, and radiculopathy VAS scores. However, significant differences were observed in the postoperative back pain visual analogue scale, operation time, and hospital stay, suggesting these factors may play a crucial role in distinguish-ing between groups.