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>

Long-term Outcomes of Prosthetic Disc Nucleus Placement Via Anterior Mini-Open Approach for Degenerative Lumbar Disc Disease

Prosthetic Disc Nucleous Replacement by Mini- Incision Retroperitoneal Approach for the Treatment of Degeneration Lumbar Disc Diseases

Prosthetic disc nucleus replacement for lumber intervertebral disc protrusion in 29 cases:Incidence rate of prosthetic displacement within 4-year follow up in 13 cases

PDN Replacement for the Treatment of Degenerative Disc Disease

The Midterm Efficacy Evaluation of Artifical Nucleus Prosthesis Replacement in Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation

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

Minimum of Two-Year Follow-up after Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy on Lumbar Disc Herniation: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes

The Mid-Term Follow-Up Results of Artificial Disc Replacement for Discogenic Low Back Pain

Artificial cervical disc replacement with the Prestige-LP prosthesis for the treatment of non-contiguous 2-level cervical degenerative disc disease: A minimum 24-month follow-up

The long-term therapeutic effect of central lumbar intervertebral disc herniation: a comparison between microendoscopy discectomy and percutaneous lumbar discectomy

The Strategy and Early Clinical Outcome of Percutaneous Full-Endoscopic Interlaminar or Extraforaminal Approach for Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation

Follow-up Study on the Motion Range after Treatment of Degenerative Disc Disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in treatment of lumbar disc herniation:a long-term follow-up study

Long-term Outcomes of Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement for Patients with Degenerative Cervical Canal Stenosis

[Long-Term Outcomes of Percutaneous Lumbar Discectomy and Microendoscopic Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation].

Clinical efficacy of single-channel percutaneous endoscopic nucleotomy with annulus fibrosus suturing for lumbar disc herniation: A retrospective study

[Effect of Intervertebral Position on Range of Motion after Artificial Lumbar Total Disc Replacement and Clinical Management].

A 10-Year Follow-Up Study of Indications for Artificial Cervical Disc Replacement

Lumbar disc replacement: preliminary results with ProDisc II after a minimum follow-up period of 1 year

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

An Analysis of the Clinical and Radiological Prognostic Factors Affecting the Outcomes of Lumbar Intradiscal Biacuplasty