Comparative study between full-endoscopic laminectomy and microendoscopic laminectomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal canal stenosis.

backgroundLumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSCS) is a common disease in the elderly. Although surgical decompression using a posterior approach is commonly used to treat LSCS, there are several different strategies. We compared the outcomes of uniportal full-endoscopic laminectomy (FEL) and microendoscopic laminectomy (MEL) for treating LSCS.

methodsFEL was performed using a 6.4-mm working channel endoscope and MEL was performed using a 16-mm diameter tubular retractor and endoscope. Patients with LSCS treated with FEL (n=60) and MEL (n=54) in our hospital during the same period were retrospectively reviewed. Patient background information and operative data were collected. The satisfaction score was also recorded at discharge and 3 months postoperatively.

resultsThe mean operation time for FEL and MEL was 77.8 min and 54.6 min, respectively. The mean hospital stay after FEL and MEL surgery was 2.1 days and 4.7 days, respectively. These outcomes were significantly different between the two approaches. The satisfaction scores at both stages were not significantly different between the two groups. A dural tear occurred in one patient who underwent FEL and three patients who underwent MEL, but no symptoms resulted from the tear. Although postoperative hematoma occurred in seven who underwent FEL and two who underwent MEL, only one patient who underwent FEL required operative evacuation of the hematoma.

conclusionsFEL using a 6.4-mm working channel endoscope can be used to treat patients with LSCS. Shortening of the operation time and prevention of postoperative hematoma are essential for this approach to be completely superior to MEL.