Literature DB >> 22441562

Impact of deep extensor muscle-preserving approach on clinical outcome of laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: comparative cohort study.

Yoshihisa Kotani1, Kuniyoshi Abumi, Manabu Ito, Hideki Sudo, Masahiko Takahata, Ken Nagahama, Akira Iwata, Akio Minami.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare patients undergoing deep extensor muscle-preserving laminoplasty and conventional open-door laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). We specifically assessed axial pain, cervical spine function, and quality of life (QOL) with a minimum follow-up period of 3 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety patients were divided into two groups and underwent either conventional open-door laminoplasty (CL group) or laminoplasty using the deep extensor muscle-preserving approach (MP group). The latter approach was undertaken by preserving the multifidus and semispinalis cervicis attachments followed by open-door laminoplasty and resuturing of the bisected spinous processes at each decompression level. The mean follow-up period was 7.7 years (range, 36-128 months). Preoperative and follow-up evaluations included the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, a tentative version of the JOA Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ) including cervical spine function and QOL, and a visual analog scale (VAS) for axial pain. Radiological analyses included cervical lordosis and flexion-extension range of motion (C2-7), as well as deep extensor muscle areas on axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
RESULTS: The mean number of decompressed laminae was 3.9 and 3.3 in CL and MP groups, respectively, which was statistically equivalent. Japanese Orthopaedic Association recovery was statistically equivalent between the two groups. The MP group demonstrated a superior QOL score (57 vs. 46%) compared with the CL group at final follow-up (p < 0.05). Mean VAS scores at final follow-up were 2.2 and 4.3 in MP and CL groups, respectively (p < 0.05). Cervical lordosis and flexion-extension range of motion were statistically equivalent. The percentage deep muscle area on MRI was significantly lesser in the CL group compared with the MP group (58 vs. 102%; p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: We demonstrated the superiority of deep extensor muscle-preserving laminoplasty in terms of postoperative axial pain, QOL, and prevention of atrophy of the deep extensor muscles over conventional open-door laminoplasty for the treatment of CSM.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22441562      PMCID: PMC3535256          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2260-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  22 in total

1.  A new technique for exposure of the cervical spine laminae. Technical note.

Authors:  Tateru Shiraishi
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 5.115

2.  Long-term results of double-door laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy.

Authors:  A Seichi; K Takeshita; I Ohishi; H Kawaguchi; T Akune; Y Anamizu; T Kitagawa; K Nakamura
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Technical improvements and results of laminoplasty for compressive myelopathy in the cervical spine.

Authors:  T Itoh; H Tsuji
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Cervical laminoplasty (Hattori's method). Procedure and follow-up results.

Authors:  S Kawai; K Sunago; K Doi; M Saika; T Taguchi
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Skip laminectomy and laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective study of clinical and radiologic outcomes.

Authors:  Alagappan Sivaraman; Arup K Bhadra; Farhaan Altaf; Anoushka Singh; Amarjit Rai; Adrian T Casey; Robert J Crawford
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2010-04

6.  Does reconstruction of posterior ligamentous complex with extensor musculature decrease axial symptoms after cervical laminoplasty?

Authors:  Munehito Yoshida; Tetsuya Tamaki; Mamoru Kawakami; Naoki Nakatani; Muneharu Ando; Hiroshi Yamada; Nobuhiro Hayashi
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Results of skip laminectomy-minimum 2-year follow-up study compared with open-door laminoplasty.

Authors:  Tateru Shiraishi; Kentaro Fukuda; Yoshiyuki Yato; Mitsukazu Nakamura; Takeshi Ikegami
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Minimum 10-year followup after en bloc cervical laminoplasty.

Authors:  Yoshiharu Kawaguchi; Masahiko Kanamori; Hirokazu Ishihara; Kazuo Ohmori; Hiroshi Nakamura; Tomoatsu Kimura
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 9.  Cervical laminoplasty: a critical review.

Authors:  John K Ratliff; Paul R Cooper
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 5.115

10.  Skip laminectomy--a new treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy, preserving bilateral muscular attachments to the spinous processes: a preliminary report.

Authors:  Tateru Shiraishi
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2002 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.166

View more
  8 in total

1.  Anterior corpectomy and fusion for two adjacent levels of cervical stenosis.

Authors:  Yann Philippe Charles; Sébastien Schuller; Gergi Sfeir; Jean-Paul Steib
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  French door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Yann Philippe Charles; Sébastien Schuller; Gergi Sfeir; Jean-Paul Steib
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Anterior corpectomy versus posterior laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xuzhou Liu; Shaoxiong Min; Hui Zhang; Zhilai Zhou; Hehui Wang; Anmin Jin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-10-05       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Preoperative Factors Affecting Postoperative Axial Symptoms After Single-Door Cervical Laminoplasty for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Prospective Comparative Study.

Authors:  Yanbin Liu; Le Liu; Zhi Zhang; Bin Sheng; Xuegang Lun; Zhong Cao; Jianmin Sun; Guangming Xu
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2016-10-16

5.  Analysis of Cervical Spine Alignment Change after Modified Kurokawa Cervical Laminoplasty in the Patients with Cervical Myelopathy and Straight Cervical Spine.

Authors:  Shangbin Cui; Fuxin Wei; Xizhe Liu; Shaoyu Liu
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 6.  Overview of Methods to Quantify Invasiveness of Surgical Approaches in Orthopedic Surgery-A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Niels Buis; Hooman Esfandiari; Armando Hoch; Philipp Fürnstahl
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-01-26

7.  A Randomized Controlled Trial for the Intervention Effect of Early Exercise Therapy on Axial Pain after Cervical Laminoplasty.

Authors:  Toru Uehara; Eiki Tsushima; Shota Yamada; Shingo Kimura; Yuya Satsukawa; Akira Yoshihara; Atsushi Inada; Takashi Hayakawa
Journal:  Spine Surg Relat Res       Date:  2021-10-11

Review 8.  Neck Pain Following Cervical Laminoplasty: Does Preservation of the C2 Muscle Attachments and/or C7 Matter?

Authors:  K Daniel Riew; Annie L Raich; Joseph R Dettori; John G Heller
Journal:  Evid Based Spine Care J       Date:  2013-04
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.