Surgical site infection rates in open versus endoscopic lumbar spinal decompression surgery: A retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT

Background: Lumbar decompression is a commonly performed procedure for the operative management of several degenerative lumbar spinal pathologies. Although open approaches are considered the traditional method, endoscopic techniques represent a relatively novel, less-invasive option to achieve neural element decompression. Here within, we examine if the use of endoscopic techniques decreases the risk of post operative infections. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis to directly compare patients who underwent either open or endoscopic lumbar decompression at a single institution. Rates of postoperative outcomes such as surgical site infection, hospital length of stay, estimated blood loss, and others were compared between the two treatment groups. A multivariate logistic regression model was constructed using patient comorbidities and procedural characteristics to identify the risk factors for surgical site infection. Results: 150 patients were identified as undergoing lumbar spine decompression surgeries that met inclusion criteria for the study, of whom 108 (72.0%) underwent open and 61 (28.0%) underwent endoscopic approaches. Unpaired analysis revealed positive associations between operative duration, estimated blood loss, drain placement rates. Multivariate logistic regression did not reveal an association between surgical approach (open versus endoscopic) and the development of surgical site infection. Conclusions: Surgical site infections following endoscopic lumbar spine decompression are relatively uncommon, however, after adjusting for baseline differences between patient populations, surgical approach does not independently predict the development of postoperative infection.