Targeted Decompression Under Local Anesthesia versus Extensive Decompression Under General Anesthesia for Octogenarians with Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Real-World Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND

Surgical management of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD) in octogenarians requires balancing effective neural decompression against diminishing physiological reserves. While general anesthesia (GA)-based endoscopic techniques (ENDO-GA) are highly effective, they often impose excessive systemic stress on frail patients. Conversely, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy under local anesthesia (PELD-LA) provides targeted decompression while mitigating these GA-associated risks. Given the scarcity of direct comparisons in this fragile population, this study evaluates the safety and efficacy of PELD-LA versus ENDO-GA.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 100 consecutive octogenarians treated for LDD between January 2021 and December 2024. Patients were stratified into two specific surgical strategy groups: targeted decompression via PELD-LA (n=54) and extensive decompression via ENDO-GA (utilizing UBE or Delta techniques, n=46). To minimize selection bias, a 1:1 Propensity Score Matching (PSM) was conducted using specific covariates (age, sex, comorbidities, and ASA classification), yielding 39 matched pairs (n=78). Primary outcomes assessed perioperative safety and recovery efficiency (complications, PONV, ambulation time, and length of hospital stay).Secondary outcomes evaluated postoperative clinical efficacy (VAS and ODI at 3 months, and modified MacNab criteria at 12 months postoperatively).

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the two groups. Perioperatively, the PELD-LA group exhibited significantly shorter operative times (97 vs 150 min, P<0.001), earlier ambulation (48 vs 72 h, P<0.001), and reduced length of hospital stay (9 vs 14 days, P<0.001) compared to the ENDO-GA group. Clinically, despite a smaller "targeted" decompression range, PELD-LA achieved long-term efficacy (MacNab criteria: 94.9% vs 94.9%, P=1.000) comparable to extensive decompression, while demonstrating superior early pain relief and functional improvement (VAS and ODI) at 3 months postoperatively (P<0.01). Crucially, the overall complication rate was significantly lower in the PELD-LA group (30.8% vs 82.1%, P<0.001), primarily driven by a marked reduction in postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (23.1% vs 66.7%, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Within our short-to-medium-term observation period, PELD-LA delivered clinical efficacy comparable to GA-based endoscopic procedures for octogenarians, while significantly reducing perioperative complications and accelerating recovery. Crucially, we do not assert that PELD-LA is universally superior; rather, we emphasize the importance of tailored patient selection. For frail patients with limited physiological reserve, PELD-LA serves as a physiologically rational strategy, balancing targeted decompression with the preservation of systemic stability.