Background: Spinal stenosis is a common degenerative condition affecting quality of life. Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques like tubular and endoscopic decompression are increasingly favored over open surgery, but direct comparisons remain limited. This study evaluates their relative effectiveness in terms of operative metrics, postoperative pain, complications, and hospital stay.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective single-center review of 180 patients who underwent tubular (n = 101) or endoscopic (n = 79) MIS decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis between June 2021 and April 2024. Demographics, perioperative variables, and outcomes such as pain scores, infection rates, reoperations, and hospital stay were compared using standard statistical tests.
Results: Both groups had similar complication and reoperation rates. Endoscopic patients reported significantly lower immediate postoperative pain (P = 0.001) and greater pain reduction from baseline (P = 0.020). No infections occurred in the endoscopic group, compared to a 5.0% infection rate in the tubular group (P = 0.045). Endoscopic cases also showed shorter in-room to incision times (P = 0.045) and reduced closure durations (P < 0.001). Hospital stay length was comparable (P = 0.138), although complications prolonged stays in the tubular group.
Conclusions: Both techniques are effective for MIS spinal decompression. Endoscopic surgery offers advantages in short-term outcomes, including lower infection risk, improved pain relief, and greater procedural efficiency. These findings support its growing role, although further prospective studies are warranted to refine clinical recommendations.
Keywords: Decompression; Hospital stay; Infection; MIS; Minimally invasive surgery; Postoperative pain; Surgical outcomes.
Published by Elsevier Inc.