Large-Scale Comparative Study Between Microendoscopic Laminectomy and Full-Endoscopic Laminectomy for the Treatment...

We previously compared the operative outcomes of microendoscopic laminectomy (MEL) and full-endoscopic laminectomy (FEL) for single-level lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSCS). In this initial report, the operative outcomes of FEL were not inferior to those of MEL.

The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of MEL and FEL for single-level LSCS on a large scale using widely used multiple evaluation methods.

MEL was performed using a 16 mm tubular retractor and an endoscope, while FEL was performed using a 6.4 mm working channel endoscope. A retrospective study was performed on patients with LSCS treated with MEL (n = 355) or FEL (n = 154). Patient background and operative data were also collected. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), and 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) scores were recorded preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively.

Background data of the two groups and the mean operation time (MEL, 72.1 m; FEL, 74.2 m) were not significant (p>0.2). The mean volumes of intraoperative bleeding (MEL, 25.2 ml; FEL, 10.3 ml) were significantly different (p<0.001). The mean postoperative hospital stays (MEL, 3.9 days; FEL, 2.1 days) were significantly different (p<0.001). Fifteen dural tears (MEL, 11; FEL, 4) and 1 surgical site infection (MEL, 1; FEL, 0) were observed but not significant (p>0.5). Reoperation was required for postoperative hematoma in five patients (MEL, 3; FEL, 2). Although the ODI, EQ-5D, and SF-36 scores improved significantly at one year postoperatively in the MEL and FEL groups (p<0.001), there were no significant differences between the two groups (p>0.1).

The operative outcomes and minimal invasiveness were no statistical difference between the MEL and FEL groups. Further development of the operative techniques and the instruments of FEL are required to shorten the operation time.