Biomechanics of cervical laminoplasty: kinetic studies comparing different surgical techniques, temporal effects and the degree of level involvement.

Laminoplasty is a common surgical technique used to treat cervical myelopathy. Both voids and contradictory information exist in the literature with regard to the initial and long-term biomechanical consequences of cervical laminoplasty. In order to clarify the existing literature, as well as provide clinically useful information, we identified three specific aims: (1) to measure the long-term differences in kinetics between the open door laminoplasty (ODL) and French door laminoplasty (FDL) techniques; (2) to delineate differences in primary and long-term cervical motion after laminoplasty; and (3) to determine whether inclusion of additional levels in the laminoplasty procedure results in a change in immediate cervical biomechanics. The study design involved both an animal (caprine) model and in vitro surgical simulation. We kinematically evaluated the cervical spine specimens (C2-C7) by applying pure bending moment loads to the cephalad vertebra (C2), while constraining the caudal vertebra (C7). Resultant intervertebral rotations (C3-C6) were determined via stereophotogrammetry. Overall, the data indicate that both FDL and ODL significantly reduce range of motion 6 months postoperatively, compared with the un-operated spine. There were no significant differences between the two techniques after 6 months. We also showed that ODL produces a significant reduction in motion 6 months postoperatively compared with the immediate postoperative condition. Finally, the data indicated that extending the laminoplasty from two to four levels did not significantly change range of motion. The choice of technique should be based upon the surgeon's experience with these technically demanding procedures. In addition, initial stability considerations should not affect the decision to extend the laminoplasty to adjacent levels. Finally, the data also suggest that early changes in biomechanics should not be a major factor when considering whether immobilization of the cervical spine is necessary after laminoplasty. In fact, our temporal study, as well as previously reported clinical data, indicates that one should expect significantly decreased intervertebral motion 6 months after laminoplasty. Therefore, early physical therapy should be considered to preserve a more physiologic pattern of cervical range of motion.