Minimally invasive lumbar decompression versus open decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a propensity...

Hundreds of thousands of Americans undergo decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis annually. The mild (minimally invasive lumbar decompression) procedure was developed as a potentially less invasive alternative to open decompression; however, much of the evidence has been gathered from industry-sponsored studies. The present study sought to compare real-world clinical outcomes between the mild procedure and open decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.

All patients who underwent the mild procedure at a single-institution, multisite, tertiary care center from 2005 to October 2024 were included. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to identify patients who underwent open decompression at the same institution, with age, sex, smoking, and comorbidities as covariates. Primary outcomes were change in pain on the numeric rating scale (NRS), surgical reoperation, and perioperative complications. For pain, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was defined as a 30% improvement in NRS score.

A total of 175 patients who underwent the mild procedure (mean age 76.3 ± 8.7 years; 44.6% female) were matched to 175 patients treated with open decompression (mean age 75.4 ± 8.7 years; 44.0% female). Among patients with at least 60 days of follow-up, those treated with open decompression were more likely to achieve the MCID for pain (43.1% vs 22.2%, p < 0.001). Patients treated with mild were more likely to require reoperation (46.2% vs 29.3%, p = 0.008). Those who underwent the mild procedure experienced lower rates of durotomies (0% vs 2.9%, p = 0.024) but had higher rates of neurological deficits (6.3% vs 0.6%, p = 0.003).

For patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis, those who underwent open decompression were more likely to achieve pain improvement and less likely to require reoperation compared with those who underwent the mild procedure.