{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01876675603217158, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012511170688114389, 'mean_word_length': 5.473988439306359, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of two endoscopic spine surgical techniques.

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to compare the clinical outcome among patients who are surgically treated for lumbar disc herniation by transforaminal and interlaminar endoscopy techniques.


METHODS
For the treatment of lumbar disc herniation, 31 patients were assigned to undergo the interlaminar technique and 24 patients the transforaminal technique. They were evaluated using visual analog scale and Oswestry disability index in the preoperative period, in the first postoperative period, and in the 12th month after the procedure. The clinical results between the two techniques were then compared.


RESULTS
Overall, 89.1% of the patients obtained good results, with 12.5% complications in the transforaminal technique and 9.6% in the interlaminar technique.


CONCLUSION
Although both the endoscopic techniques, compared in this study, are safe and effective for the surgical treatment of lumbar herniated disc, the interlaminar technique presented significantly better results and lower rates of complications than the transforaminal technique.