I. Events related to perioperative surgery 1. Less trauma at the surgical site and fewer associated complications. The responsibility and pressure of ward care is low. 2.Simple care, you can get down and move around after surgery, and the burden of family care is light. 3.Short return to work time. II. Events related to surgery 1. Surgery is highly targeted and minimally invasive surgery is performed according to the responsible gap for treatment. If open surgery may require 2-3 gaps to fuse, minimally invasive can choose 1 responsible gap for treatment, other gaps can be based on whether the later responsible symptoms, and then decide whether to target treatment. 2, PELD surgery does not fuse gaps, theoretically low complications in adjacent segments. peld surgery simply removes the herniated disc, no gap fusion, equivalent to non-fusion surgery of the spine. Theoretically, it does not increase the load on the adjacent gap, and the possibility of secondary instability is reduced. 3, the incidence and severity of complications associated with the surgical site is low. PELD surgery is performed under local anesthesia, and the patient is the best immediate all-around neurological monitor. Ensure the smooth and safe operation. For example, if the dural sac ruptures, the rupture of PELD does not require repair and increased bed rest time is sufficient. Whereas a ruptured dural sac resulting from developmental surgery may require reoperation or puncture treatment and significantly increases the length of hospital stay. Third, any thing is two-sided: PELD has the advantages of course, there are defects. 1, PELD surgery does not do lumbar spine fixed fusion, for low back pain (lower back pain LBK) can not be controlled. Related high-level studies also show that minimally invasive surgery compared with open surgery, leg pain, low back pain relief no significant difference. 2. There was no difference in the reoperation rate compared to open surgery. Even though there is no difference in reoperation rate, the PELD surgery is so minimally invasive that reoperation is very simple to manage. The total number of patients treated again endoscopically or surgically for various reasons in our database was 45, accounting for 2.5% of cases in the same period. This is much lower than the 5-12% reported abroad. The reason for this is closely related to the fine subspecialty of our discipline, the narrow scope of practice of doctors, and the strict control of indications. 3. Long learning curve. It took nearly 4 years to complete the first 100 cases, and the incidence of secondary surgery within the first 100 cases was 7%. As the technology matured, the rate of secondary surgery was reduced to less than 2%. It is so hard to train and mature as a minimally invasive spine surgeon. One may mature through the bumps in the road, or one may meet an insurmountable hurdle and give up.