Comparison of Microendoscopic Laminotomy (MEL) Versus Spinous Process-Splitting Laminotomy (SPSL) for Multi Segmental Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Aims This study was aimed to compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent posterior decompression for multi-segmental lumbar spinal stenosis by microendoscopic laminotomy (MEL) versus spinous process-splitting laminotomy (SPSL) retrospectively. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 73 consecutive patients who underwent two or three levels MEL (n=51) or SPSL (n=22) for lumbar spinal stenosis between 2012 and 2018. The perioperative outcomes were operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of postoperative hospital stay, complications, and reoperation rate. The postoperative outcomes were evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) scores at one year postoperatively. Results The mean follow-up time was 26.6 months in MEL and 35.6 months in SPSL. The mean operative time was significantly longer in MEL than SPSL (two levels, 183.6 +/- 43.2 versus 134.8 +/- 26.7 min, respectively; three levels: 241.6 +/- 47.8 versus 179.9 +/- 28.8 min, respectively). MEL's mean postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter than SPSL (12.3 +/- 5.9 versus 15.5 +/- 7.2 days, respectively). There was no significant difference in the mean intraoperative blood loss, complication rate, reoperation rate, and postoperative outcomes between the two groups. Conclusions This study suggests that both techniques are effective in treating multi-segmental lumbar spinal stenosis. There was no significant difference between the two procedures in intraoperative blood loss (IBL), complications rate, reoperation rate, or improvement in VAS and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) scores. MEL had an advantage in the postoperative hospital stay.