Efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for cervical disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Since there are currently no systematic evidence-based medical data on the efficacy and safety of PECD, this meta-analysis pooled data from studies that reported the efficacy or safety of PECD for cervical disc herniation to examine the efficacy, recurrence and safety of using PECD to treat cervical disc herniation. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for studies published from inception to July 2022. Nine nonrandomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) that reported the efficacy or safety of percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for cervical disc herniation were included. We excluded duplicate publications, studies without full text, studies with incomplete information, studies that did not enable us to conduct data extraction, animal experiments and reviews. STATA 15.1 software was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: The proportions of excellent and good treatment results after PECD for CDH were 39% (95% CI: 31–48%) and 47% (95% CI: 34–59%), respectively. The pooled results showed that the VAS scores at 1 week post-operatively (SMD = −2.55, 95% CI: − 3.25 to − 1.85) and at the last follow-up (SMD = − 4.30, 95% CI: − 5.61 to − 3.00) after PECD for cervical disc herniation were significantly lower than the pre-operative scores. The recurrence rate of neck pain and the incidence of adverse events after PECD for cervical disc herniation were 3% (95% CI: 1–6%) and 5% (95% CI: 2–9%), respectively. Additionally, pooled results show that the operative time (SMD = − 3.22, 95% CI: − 5.21 to − 1.43) and hospital stay (SMD = − 1.75, 95% CI: − 2.67to − 0.84) were all significantly lower for PECD than for ACDF. The pooled results also showed that the proportion of excellent treatment results was significantly higher for PECD than for ACDF (OR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.06–4.96). CONCLUSION: PECD has a high success rate in the treatment of CHD and can relieve neck pain, and the recurrence rate and the incidence of adverse events are low. In addition, compared with ACDF, PECD has a higher rate of excellent outcomes and a lower operative time and hospital stay. PECD may be a better option for treating CHD. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13018-022-03365-1.