OBJECTIVES: The high degree of spine disorder incidence defines problem of treatment of patients with spinal disc herniations (SDH) as one of the most pressing issues of modern age. Currently, the pure intradiscal technique (PIDT) for SDH is the most modern and attractive. The main PIDT advantage, in comparison with traditional "open" surgery, is minimally-invasive procedures, which reduce complications risk, shorten rehabilitation time and allows to assume cost-effectiveness of this method.  METHODS: Review of literature was conducted on cost-effectiveness of PIDT in databases of the Cochrane Library, University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Tripdatabase, CADTH, Embase, NICE, Clinical Trials. The only economical publications were included, where combined costs and intervention effects of different methods were evaluated.  RESULTS: Estimation of quality of life in results of PIDT using Oswestry questionnaire, VAS; MacNab and NASS scales showed positive dynamics in comparison with other surgical methods. Cost-effectiveness results of conducted review varies depending on treatment duration, the presence/absence of complications, recidivation and etc. The  work of some authors shows that in terms of cost / benefit PIDT has a lower cost in the ratio of 0,89 compared with "open" surgery. Some authors during comparison with open surgery came to preliminary conclusion that PIDT is cost-effectiveness method due to the presence of the difference in cost from 2.54% to 33.68%, the stay in hospital length from 1.53 to 12 days, respectively.  CONCLUSIONS: PIDT in its efficacy would not disgrace the other surgical treatment methods of SDH, achieving clinical benefits, associated with reducing iatrogenic injury and early recovery of patients. However, strength of conclusions is limited by complications risk and lack of adequate data confirming the cost-effectiveness of PIDT. These factors give rise to carry out well-designed multicenter studies and to research it for draw maximally objective conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of PIDT.