Abstract:[Objective] To evaluate the clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) versus percutane-ous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) for calcified lumbar disc herniation (cLDH). [Methods] PubMed, Web of science, EMS-CO, CNKI and Wanfang and VIP databases from January 1973 to February 2023 were searched to collect literatures on the comparison ofPETD and PEID in the treatment of cLDH. A meta-analysis was performed with Revman 5.4 software. [Results] A total of 2 English litera-tures and 1 Chinese literatures were included in this study, involving a total of 161 patients, 72 treated with PEID and 89 with PETD. As re-sults of the meta-analysis, the leg pain VAS scores [PEID group, (MD=6.58, 95%CI 4.65~8.51, P<0.001); PETD group, (MD=6.40, 95%CI4.72~8.07, P<0.001)], and ODI score [PEID group, (MD=53.39, 95% CI 50~56.78, P<0.001); PETD group (MD=52.34, 95% CI 48.73~55.96, P<0.001)] were significantly improved at the latest follow-up compared with those preoperatively. However, there were no significantdifferences in VAS, ODI score, modified score and postoperative complication rate between the two groups at the last follow-up (P>0.05).[Conclusion] Both PEID and PETD can effectively treat calcified lumbar disc herniation, and there is no significant difference in efficacyand complication rate between PEID and PETD.