Objective To explore the efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion（PE ⁃PLIF）vs minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion（MIS ⁃TLIF）for lumbar canal stenosis. Methods A retrospective analysis of the clinical data of 79 patients with lumbar canal stenosis treated with PE⁃PLIF or MIS⁃TLIF was conducted. Results All patients completed the surgery successfully. The PE⁃PLIF group had fewer hospital days，fewer postoperative bed days，and less intraoperative blood loss than those of the MIS⁃TLIF group，but the total cost and length of surgery were more than those of the MIS⁃TLIF group，with statisti⁃ cally significant differences（P < 0.05）. The visual analogue scale（VAS）of leg pain was lower in the PE⁃PLIF group than that of the MIS⁃TLIF group at 1 week postoperatively，and the VAS score of low back pain was lower in the PE⁃PLIF group than that of the MIS⁃TLIF group at 1 week and 1 and 3 months postoperatively，with a statistically significant difference（P < 0.05）. No statistically significant difference was noted in the postoperative Japanese Orthopedic Association（JOA）score of the lumbar spine，intervertebral space height，sagittal diameter of the spinal canal，efficacy of modified MacNab，and intervertebral fusion between the two groups（P > 0.05）. Conclusion PE⁃PLIF and MIS⁃TLIF had similar short⁃ and medium⁃term clinical efficacy in the treatment of lumbar canal steno⁃ sis，but patients in the PE⁃PLIF group showed better symptomatic improvement than that of the MIS⁃TLIF group at 3 months postoperatively.