STUDY DESIGN: Laminoplasty was simulated using a computer-assisted technique to assess the amount of canal expansion. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to clarify the relationship between laminoplasty opening size and increase in sagittal canal diameter, increase in canal area, and the angle of the opened lamina following laminoplasty, and to determine whether a spinous process-splitting laminoplasty achieves the similar canal expansion as a single open-door method. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Single and double-door cervical laminoplasty (SDCL and DDCL, respectively) have been widely used in the treatment of multilevel stenotic conditions. However, the relationship between laminoplasty opening size and spinal canal expansion following laminoplasty, and the comparison of postoperative spinal canal expansion between single and double-door techniques have not been well investigated. METHODS: SDCL and DDCL, based on preoperative computerized tomography scans of 34 patients who had undergone the laminoplasty surgery, were simulated using a computer-assisted technique. Laminoplasty with an opening size of 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 mm were simulated to determine the amount of canal enlargement with the various opening size. RESULTS: Sagittal diameter, canal area, and lamina angle were increased steadily following either single or double-door laminoplasty with the door opened from 6 to 18 mm. Significant positive correlation was found between laminoplasty opening size and increase in sagittal diameter (R2 = 0.969 and P = 0.001 in SDCL; R2 = 0.926 and P < 0.001 in DDCL), increase in canal area (R2 = 0.961 and P < 0.001 in SDCL; R2 = 0.937 and P < 0.001 in DDCL), and lamina angle (R2 = 0.959 and P < 0.001 in SDCL; R2 = 0.943 and P < 0.001 in DDCL). No significant correlation was observed between preoperative sagittal diameter and increase in sagittal diameter of the spinal canal, whereas significant positive correlation was found between preoperative cross-section area and increase in cross-section area of the spinal canal. The differences between postoperative canal increase in sagittal diameter and canal area for the single versus double-door technique were statistically significant when the door was opened by more than 12 mm (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our investigation provides insight into canal expansion after laminoplasty. The increased amount of canal following laminoplasty can be predicted by the regression equations. This may allow preoperative determination of the optimal size of the opening needed to establish adequate canal space for the spinal cord. Both single and double-door techniques of laminoplasty provide sufficient room for posterior migration of the spinal cord, although gaining different canal expansion.
STUDY DESIGN: Laminoplasty was simulated using a computer-assisted technique to assess the amount of canal expansion. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to clarify the relationship between laminoplasty opening size and increase in sagittal canal diameter, increase in canal area, and the angle of the opened lamina following laminoplasty, and to determine whether a spinous process-splitting laminoplasty achieves the similar canal expansion as a single open-door method. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Single and double-door cervical laminoplasty (SDCL and DDCL, respectively) have been widely used in the treatment of multilevel stenotic conditions. However, the relationship between laminoplasty opening size and spinal canal expansion following laminoplasty, and the comparison of postoperative spinal canal expansion between single and double-door techniques have not been well investigated. METHODS: SDCL and DDCL, based on preoperative computerized tomography scans of 34 patients who had undergone the laminoplasty surgery, were simulated using a computer-assisted technique. Laminoplasty with an opening size of 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 mm were simulated to determine the amount of canal enlargement with the various opening size. RESULTS: Sagittal diameter, canal area, and lamina angle were increased steadily following either single or double-door laminoplasty with the door opened from 6 to 18 mm. Significant positive correlation was found between laminoplasty opening size and increase in sagittal diameter (R2 = 0.969 and P = 0.001 in SDCL; R2 = 0.926 and P < 0.001 in DDCL), increase in canal area (R2 = 0.961 and P < 0.001 in SDCL; R2 = 0.937 and P < 0.001 in DDCL), and lamina angle (R2 = 0.959 and P < 0.001 in SDCL; R2 = 0.943 and P < 0.001 in DDCL). No significant correlation was observed between preoperative sagittal diameter and increase in sagittal diameter of the spinal canal, whereas significant positive correlation was found between preoperative cross-section area and increase in cross-section area of the spinal canal. The differences between postoperative canal increase in sagittal diameter and canal area for the single versus double-door technique were statistically significant when the door was opened by more than 12 mm (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our investigation provides insight into canal expansion after laminoplasty. The increased amount of canal following laminoplasty can be predicted by the regression equations. This may allow preoperative determination of the optimal size of the opening needed to establish adequate canal space for the spinal cord. Both single and double-door techniques of laminoplasty provide sufficient room for posterior migration of the spinal cord, although gaining different canal expansion.