Literature DB >> 21388285

Treatment of cervical stenotic myelopathy: a cost and outcome comparison of laminoplasty versus laminectomy and lateral mass fusion.

Jason M Highsmith1, Sanjay S Dhall, Regis W Haid, Gerald E Rodts, Praveen V Mummaneni.   

Abstract

OBJECT: Cervical stenotic myelopathy due to spondylosis or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament is often treated with laminoplasty or cervical laminectomy (with fusion). The goal of this study was to compare outcomes, radiographic results, complications, and implant costs associated with these 2 treatments.
METHODS: The authors analyzed the records of 56 patients (age range 42–81 years) who were surgically treated for cervical stenosis. Of this group, 30 underwent laminoplasty and 26 underwent laminectomy with fusion. Patients who had cervical kyphosis or spondylolisthesis were excluded. An average of 4 levels were instrumented in the laminoplasty group and 5 levels in the fusion group (p < 0.01). Forty-two percent of the fusions crossed the cervicothoracic junction, but no laminoplasty instrumentation crossed the cervicothoracic junction, and it only reached C-7 in one-third of the cases. Preoperative and postoperative Nurick grades and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scores were obtained. Outcomes were also assessed with neck pain visual analog scale (VAS) scores and the Odom outcome criteria. Postoperative length of stay, complications, and implant costs were calculated.
RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up, average patient age, and length of hospital stay were similar for both groups. The mean Nurick scores were also similar in the 2 groups and improved an average of 1.4 points in both (p < 0.01 for preoperative-postoperative comparison in each group). The mean mJOA scores improved 2.7 points in laminoplasty patients and 2.8 points in fusion patients (p < 0.01 for each group). The mean VAS scores for neck pain did not change significantly in the laminoplasty cohort (3.2 ± 2.8 [SD] preoperatively vs 3.4 ± 2.6 postoperatively, p = 0.50). In the fusion cohort, the mean VAS scores improved from 5.8 ± 3.2 to 3.0 ± 2.3 (p < 0.01). Excellent or good Odom outcomes were observed in 76.7% of the patients in the laminoplasty cohort and 80.8% of those in the fusion cohort (p = 0.71). In the fusion group, complications were twice as common and implant costs were nearly 3 times as high as in the laminoplasty group. When cases involving fusions crossing the cervicothoracic junction were excluded, analysis showed similar complication rates in the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with laminoplasty and patients treated with laminectomy and fusion had similar improvements in Nurick scores, mJOA scores, and Odom outcomes. Patients who underwent fusion typically had higher preoperative neck pain scores, but their neck pain improved significantly after surgery. There was no significant change in the neck pain scores of patients treated with laminoplasty. Our series suggests cervical fusion significantly reduces neck pain in patients with stenotic myelopathy, but that the cost of the implant and rate of reoperation are greater than in laminoplasty.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21388285     DOI: 10.3171/2011.1.SPINE10206

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  35 in total

Review 1.  Cervical laminectomy and instrumented lateral mass fusion: techniques, pearls and pitfalls.

Authors:  Michael Mayer; Oliver Meier; Alexander Auffarth; Heiko Koller
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Posterior decompression and fusion versus laminoplasty for cervical ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ping Xu; Guo-Dong Sun; Lu Xun; Shi-Shu Huang; Zhi-Zhong Li
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2020-06-13       Impact factor: 3.042

3.  Effect of Ventral vs Dorsal Spinal Surgery on Patient-Reported Physical Functioning in Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Zoher Ghogawala; Norma Terrin; Melissa R Dunbar; Janis L Breeze; Karen M Freund; Adam S Kanter; Praveen V Mummaneni; Erica F Bisson; Fred G Barker; J Sanford Schwartz; James S Harrop; Subu N Magge; Robert F Heary; Michael G Fehlings; Todd J Albert; Paul M Arnold; K Daniel Riew; Michael P Steinmetz; Marjorie C Wang; Robert G Whitmore; John G Heller; Edward C Benzel
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2021-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of spondylotic cervical myelopathy: short-term follow-up.

Authors:  Daniel J Blizzard; Adam M Caputo; Charles Z Sheets; Mitchell R Klement; Keith W Michael; Robert E Isaacs; Christopher R Brown
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Revision surgery for failed cervical spine reconstruction: review article.

Authors:  John D Koerner; Christopher K Kepler; Todd J Albert
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2014-07-25

6.  Posterior surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: review article.

Authors:  Paul D Kiely; John C Quinn; Jerry Y Du; Darren R Lebl
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2015-02-10

7.  Anterior approaches for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: which? When? How?

Authors:  Sanford E Emery
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-02-05       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  Laminectomy and fusion vs laminoplasty for multi-level cervical myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Daniel B Scherman; Joshua Xu; Vannessa Leung; Sohaib Virk; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-06-24       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 9.  Laminoplasty and laminectomy for cervical sponydylotic myelopathy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ronald H M A Bartels; Maurits W van Tulder; Wouter A Moojen; Mark P Arts; Wilco C Peul
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Length of stay associated with posterior cervical fusion with intervertebral cages: experience from a device registry.

Authors:  Kris Siemionow; William Smith; Mark Gillespy; Bruce M McCormack; Mukund I Gundanna; Jon E Block
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.