Lumbar spinal stenosis is a major cause of morbidity in our aging population.4 With an increased premium placed on quality of life and changes in societal expectations, more spine surgeons and patients are opting for surgical intervention to treat this condition in the elderly. The goal of this type of surgery is to provide symptomatic relief from radicular pain, neurogenic claudication, and neurological dysfunction while at the same time minimizing the risk of segmental instability and complications. One can appreciate the greater challenge that this surgical intervention may pose in the elderly population with their associated comorbidities. The literature supports surgical intervention versus nonoperative treatment for long-term clinical relief of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis;12 however, controversy remains regarding the application of these interventions in the elderly population because of the potential for increased perioperative complications.2,3,5,6 Recently, investigators have been examining the differences in outcomes between traditional and less invasive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in all patient populations, including the elderly.1,8,9,10,11 Traditionally, surgeons have thought that a laminectomy is required to achieve an adequate decompression. Those favoring less invasive surgery believe that a sufficient decompression may be achieved with a unilateral partial hemilaminectomy. The rationale for considering less invasive surgery is the potential for decreased postoperative spinal stability, decreased postoperative pain, and a shorter hospital length of stay. The article by Morgalla et al.7 in this issue of Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine is a retrospective review evaluating the results of lumbar spinal decompression 1 year postoperatively in a group of 108 patients who were 60 years of age or older and had lumbar spinal stenosis at 1 or more levels and in whom conservative treatment lasting at least 3 months had failed. The 3 approaches evaluated in this study were unilateral partial hemilaminectomy, hemilaminectomy, and laminectomy. Patients with previous lumbar spinal surgery, developmental spinal deformities, vertebral fractures, inflammatory spondylopathies, spinal infarct or tumors, or severe comorbid conditions greater than American Society of Anesthesiologists Class 3 were excluded from this study. The outcome was assessed 12 months postoperatively using the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale and the Hannover Functional Back Pain Questionnaire. There was a statistically significant clinical improvement in the preand postoperative states with all 3 techniques; however, there was no significant difference between the techniques. A unilateral partial hemilaminectomy potentially produces clinical results that are equivalent to those achieved by a more formal laminectomy. However, it is important to point out that only 10 patients in this series actually underwent a formal laminectomy. Considering the retrospective nature of this paper and the potential for selection bias, the authors must be commended for their attempt in assessing 3 cohorts that were well matched for the baseline demographic covariates of sex, age, marital status, number of children, educational level, and key social supports. However, given the nonrandomized design of this study and the retrospective nature of data collection and analysis, one cannot rule out residual confounding factors that could influence the results. Moreover, as indicated above, it is important to stress that very few patients (10) in the series underwent a formal laminectomy, and hence the potential for Type II error is real. Finally, while the complication rates (7.4%) appear acceptable, few details regarding the impact and severity of these complications are provided. The authors must be congratulated for their work on this paper. The work of Morgalla et al.7 may have clinical and economic implications at a time when our population is aging and our health care expenditures are rising. This study has laid the foundation for future prospective controlled studies with adequate power, appropriate outcome measures, and a longer follow-up to further examine the optimal methods of treating lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly population. However, based on emerging data in the literature, including the current paper by Morgalla et al., spine surgeons should consider, when clinically appropriate, using less invasive techniques when treating lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly.