This page reflects every endoscopic procedure performed by Dr. Thomas to date — not a fixed sample, and not just the good outcomes. Each dot below is one real patient. It updates as new procedures are completed. Most recent procedure included: Nov 4, 2026.
143 procedures, 143 dots
Each dot is one patient. Color shows how their recovery went.
Reoperation rate, over time
This chart tracks one specific measure — the share of patients who needed a second procedure — comparing the earlier half of all procedures performed so far to the more recent half. (It does not include the minor, non-reoperation complications shown in the table below, which have stayed roughly flat over the same period.)
% of patients who needed a second procedure
This kind of improvement over the course of a surgeon’s experience with a technique is common and expected — it’s one reason many surgeons and hospitals track it.
How does this compare to published research?
Independent studies on endoscopic and minimally invasive lumbar discectomy — pooling data from thousands of patients across many surgeons and hospitals — give a useful benchmark. Here’s a more detailed, side-by-side breakdown:
| Measure | Published research range | This practice |
|---|---|---|
| Dural tear (small tear in the tissue around the spinal nerves) | roughly 1%–5%1,7 | 3% |
| Temporary nerve irritation (numbness/tingling that resolves) | roughly 1%–5%1 | 5% |
| Other minor complications | not consistently broken out as its own category in published studies | 1% |
| Any complication (combined) | roughly 5%–10%5,6 | 8% |
| Needed a second procedure (mostly recurrence) | roughly 5%–11%, up to ~15–20% over many years in longer-term studies2,3,4,8 | 10% |
Complications and reoperations are tracked as separate measures, on purpose — a second procedure and a surgical complication are different kinds of events, and most published studies report them separately rather than combined.
Published ranges are drawn from the peer-reviewed studies listed in the references below. Every practice’s patient population, follow-up length, and surgical approach differ, so these are offered as general context, not a direct head-to-head comparison.
What’s included in “complication, no second procedure”?
Most of these are temporary numbness or tingling near the nerve that was treated — an expected, usually short-lived response to working near a nerve root, which resolves without any further treatment.
A smaller number are a small tear in the tissue surrounding the spinal nerves (a “dural tear”). This is a recognized surgical complication, not a minor one — it’s identified and repaired during the same surgery. In some of these cases, an additional procedure (a “blood patch,” done without returning to the operating room) was needed afterward to fully resolve symptoms. Because a dural tear is a real complication — even when it’s fully handled without a second surgery — it’s grouped here rather than with the complication-free cases, where “no complication” would understate what actually happened.
What does “needed a second procedure” mean?
About half of these were because the same disc herniated again at the same spot — a known possibility with this kind of surgery, not unique to this practice. The rest were smaller adjustments for a related issue found nearby. A second procedure isn’t the same as the first one failing — it’s healthcare being honest that a repeat visit is sometimes part of full recovery.
Why show this instead of just a “success rate”? A single headline number can hide a lot. Showing every outcome — including the ones that needed extra care — and comparing honestly to published research is meant to give you the full picture so you can ask informed questions.
References
The published ranges above are drawn from these peer-reviewed sources:
- Ravikumar V, et al. The utilization of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed
- Samir A, et al. Risk Factors and Reoperation Rate in Revision Lumbar Disc Herniation Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1,031,348 Patients. 2026. DOI
- The Essence of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Lumbar Disc Herniation, 2021: Prognosis. PMC
- Comprehensive identification of risk factors for recurrence after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis (14,454 patients). Frontiers in Surgery, 2026. Frontiers
- Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis. PMC
- Complications and Management of Endoscopic Spinal Surgery. e-Neurospine
- Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: Results of first 100 cases. PMC
- Reoperation after lumbar disc surgery in two hundred and seven patients. PMC
This page reflects real procedure outcomes and updates as new cases are completed. Outcomes for any individual patient depend on many factors specific to them. This page is for general information only and is not a substitute for a conversation with your surgeon about your own situation and risks.