Abstract:We read the article entitled "Lumbar disc herniation: long-term outcomes after mini-open discectomy" [<a href="#CR1">1</a>] with great interest. The results described by the author have very important guiding significance for surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). But we also have some concerns regarding the study:<ol><li class="ListItem">1. The exclusion criteria include scoliosis (Cobb angle > 15°), is there a specific scoliosis classification? Are we to understand that all LDHs combined with scoliosis are not suitable for mini-open discectomy? Fusion or correction of deformity is necessary for such patients? Sciatic scoliosis is known as a nonstructural scoliosis secondary to nerve root irritation [<a href="#CR2">2</a>]. If the painful stimulus is removed, scoliosis should be improved. Almost 40 LDHs combined with scoliosis (Cobb angle 15o–40o) underwent discectomy in our institution. The scoliosis can gradually be corrected followed post-operative pain relief. So we think the sciatic scoliosis (Cobb angle > 15°) is not a contraindication of discectomy. </li><li class="ListItem">2. The authors stated that these results deteriorate gradually during the follow-up. Does this trend have a different distribution among the 552 patients? Are there differences in follow-up outcomes between different surgical segments and different age groups? That is the focus of the reader's attention. For a large sample study with 15-year follow-up, the author does not mention it. We observed 247 LDHs followed discectomy in our institution, we found these lumbar 4–5 disc herniations showing relatively poor results in 40–50 age group. But our sample size and the follow-up time is not enough. It's too early to make a conclusion. </li><li class="ListItem">3. In the discussion section, the authors state mini-open discectomy has a longer interval time between initial surgery and revision by comparing mini-invasive techniques. We think this is an inappropriate comparison. First, the spine mini-invasive technique is a very broad concept; microendoscopic discectomy (MED), percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar/transforaminal discectomy (PEID/PETD), and even the mini-open discectomy are all included. In the literature cited by the authors, the objects of comparison just are MED, PETD, and open discectomy. Second, risk factors [<a href="#CR3">3</a>] that had significant relation with recurrent LDH were smoking, disc protrusion, and diabetes. Not only because of surgery. And there is a similar surgical path and decompression method for mini-open discectomy, MED, and PEID. Intra-operative detail processing is critical to the results, including recurrence. So we think it is not appropriate to evaluate the mini-open discectomy by comparing the interval time between initial surgery and revision of mini-open discectomy and mini-invasive techniques. </li></ol>

Open vs tubular rate of re-operation for incidental durotomies after lumbar microdiscectomies: a propensity matched analysis

Comparison of Outcomes Between Tubular Microdiscectomy and Conventional Microdiscectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Tubular vs. mini-open lumbar discoidectomy: surgical-clinical outcome

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Diseases

Incidental durotomy during tubular microdiscectomy does not preclude same-day discharge

Incidence, risk factors, and treatment of incidental durotomy during decompression in degenerative lumbar spine conditions

Multivariate Analysis Of Risk Factors For Predicting Incidental Durotomy In Lumbar Surgery

Incidental Durotomy During Endoscopic Stenosis Lumbar Decompression: Incidence, Classification, and Proposed Management Strategies

Analysis of Reoperation Causes of Microinvasive Endoscopic Discectomy and That of Open Discectomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation

Mini-open Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation Following Posterior Instrumentation.

Closing the Gap: The Incidence of Complications in Minimally Invasive Tubular, Endoscopic, and Robotic-Assisted Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Procedures

Lumbar disc herniation: long-term outcomes after mini-open discectomy

Comparison of Endoscope-Assisted and Microscope-Assisted Tubular Surgery for Lumbar Laminectomies and Discectomies: Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up Results

Incidental durotomy in lumbar decompressive surgery: incidence and risk-factors, and the effect of durotomy on hospital and patient metrics

Characterization and Risk Factor Analysis for Reoperation after Microendoscopic Diskectomy.

Spinal Intradural Extramedullary Tumors: A Retrospective Analysis on Ten-Years' Experience of Minimally Invasive Surgery and a Comparison with the Open Approach

Single-Level Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic versus Tubular Microdiscectomy: Comparing Surgical Outcomes and Opioid Consumption

Economic implications of dural tears in lumbar microdiscectomies: a retrospective, observational study

Microendoscopy-assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: Short-Term and Medium-Term Outcomes.

Complication rates of different discectomy techniques for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A prospective study of microscope-assisted discectomy versus open fenestration discectomy for lumbar disc herniation