The technique

Same target. Smaller path.

Endoscopic spine surgery uses a high-definition camera and specialized instruments passed through a single small tube — reaching a herniated disc or a pinched nerve without cutting through as much muscle as open surgery requires.

See the difference

Three ways to reach the same disc — one leaves far less behind.

Open Microdiscectomy MUSCLE BONE 4–6 cm incision Muscle stripped & retracted off the bone Tubular Microdiscectomy MUSCLE BONE 18mm dilator ~17.8 cm³ tissue volume over 7cm STATIC · FIXED RETRACTOR OUR APPROACH Endoscopic Discectomy MUSCLE BONE 7mm channel ~2.7 cm³ tissue volume over 7cm DYNAMIC · REPOSITIONABLE
Tissue volume displaced · most common sizes · 7cm corridor
Tubular (18mm)
~17.8 cm³
Endoscopic (7mm)
~2.7 cm³
~6.6×
less tissue volume than tubular, same 7cm depth

This comparison uses a standard single-level discectomy as the example. In more complex cases — revision surgery after a prior procedure, or spinal stenosis — the gap often widens further: endoscopic access typically stays the same single 7–10mm incision, while a traditional open approach's incision has to grow to reach the same anatomy, often meaning a longer, multi-day hospital stay. Many revision cases can still be done under local or epidural anesthesia with sedation, the same options available for primary procedures.


Grounded in the research

What the published research actually shows.

Endoscopic spine surgery isn't new — surgeons have been performing it for decades. What limited its use for years was a steep learning curve: it demands a different skill set than open or microscopic surgery, and there was no standardized path to learn it. That's changing. Advances in optics, imaging, and instrumentation, combined with the emergence of formal fellowship training, have made the technique far more learnable and reproducible — and a growing share of the spine surgery field is adopting it as a result.

Results hold up over time

A randomized trial that followed patients for five years — the longest follow-up published on this comparison — found comparable long-term results and comparable rates of the problem returning, with a shorter hospital stay for the endoscopic group.5

Fewer tears & fewer infections

A 2026 analysis of more than 2,600 matched patients found significantly fewer tears in the protective lining around the spinal nerves (0.15% vs. 1.15%) and fewer wound infections with endoscopic surgery — with similar reoperation rates between groups.6

5. Chen Z, Zhang L, Dong J, et al. Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy Versus Microendoscopic Discectomy for Lumbar Disk Herniation: Five-year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Spine. 2023;48(2):79–88.
6. Perez-Albela A, Singh M, Kim J, et al. Open Versus Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of 2618 Surgical Patients. Spine. 2026;51(10):731–735.
See the home page for four additional citations on complication rates, blood loss, hospital stay, and return to work. Findings vary across individual studies and surgical technique; outcomes for any individual patient depend on anatomy, diagnosis, and overall health, and are discussed during consultation.

Anesthesia options

Not every case needs general anesthesia.

Endoscopic access is precise enough that, for select patients and procedures, surgery can be done with a local numbing injection or an epidural, plus light sedation, instead of putting you fully to sleep. Whether that's an option for you depends on your specific procedure and health — it's discussed individually, not assumed.

Ready to find out if you're a candidate?

Reach out and our team will take it from there.

Request a Consultation