Endoscopic Versus Open Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: An International, Multi-Institutional Analysis of Outcomes and Adverse Events

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study and systematic review. OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic decompression offers a minimally invasive alternative to traditional, open laminectomy. However, comparison of these surgical techniques has been largely limited to small, single-center studies. In this study, we perform the first international, multicenter comparison of both with regard to their associated rates of mortality, complications, readmissions, and reoperations. METHODS: The 2017 American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database, containing data from over 650 hospitals internationally, was queried to evaluate the effect of endoscopic guidance on adverse events. Operative time, length of stay, readmission and reoperation rates, as well as the incidence of peri- and postoperative complications, were compared between endoscopic and open groups. The PubMed/MEDLINE database was queried for studies comparing the techniques. RESULTS: A total of 10 726 single-level lumbar decompression patients were identified and included in this study, 34 (0.32%) of whom were operated upon endoscopically. Apart from 2 (5.88%) readmissions, among which only 1 was unplanned, there were no reported surgical complications within the endoscopic group. The mean length of stay for these patients was 0.86 ± 1.44 days, with procedures lasting an average of 91.89 ± 46.72 minutes. However, these endpoints did not differ significantly from the open group. On literature review, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria, and largely consisted of single-center, retrospective analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopically guided approaches to single-level lumbar decompression did not reduce the incidence of adverse events, length of stay or operative time, perhaps due to advances among certain nonendoscopic techniques, such as microsurgery.