Literature DB >> 27342611

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

Kevin Phan1,2,3, Daniel B Scherman1, Joshua Xu1, Vannessa Leung3, Sohaib Virk3, Ralph J Mobbs4,5,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgical approaches for multi-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) include posterior cervical surgery via laminectomy and fusion (LF) or expansive laminoplasty (EL). The relative benefits and risks of either approach in terms of clinical outcomes and complications are not well established. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to address this topic.
METHODS: Electronic searches were performed using six databases from their inception to January 2016, identifying all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing LF vs EL for multi-level cervical myelopathy. Data was extracted and analyzed according to predefined endpoints.
RESULTS: From 10 included studies, there were 335 patients who underwent LF compared to 320 patients who underwent EL. There was no significant difference found postoperatively between LF and EL groups in terms of postoperative JOA (P = 0.39), VAS neck pain (P = 0.93), postoperative CCI (P = 0.32) and Nurich grade (P = 0.42). The total complication rate was higher for LF compared to EL (26.4 vs 15.4 %, RR 1.77, 95 % CI 1.10, 2.85, I 2 = 34 %, P = 0.02). Reoperation rate was found to be similar between LF and EL groups (P = 0.52). A significantly higher pooled rate of nerve palsies was found in the LF group compared to EL (9.9 vs 3.7 %, RR 2.76, P = 0.03). No significant difference was found in terms of operative time and intraoperative blood loss.
CONCLUSIONS: From the available low-quality evidence, LF and EL approaches for CSM demonstrates similar clinical improvement and loss of lordosis. However, a higher complication rate was found in LF group, including significantly higher nerve palsy complications. This requires further validation and investigation in larger sample-size prospective and randomized studies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical myelopathy; Fusion; Laminectomy; Laminoplasty; Meta-analysis; Spine

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27342611     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4671-5

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


  36 in total

1.  Effect of decompression enlargement laminoplasty for posterior shifting of the spinal cord.

Authors:  T Sodeyama; S Goto; M Mochizuki; J Takahashi; H Moriya
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 2.  Operative treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Raj D Rao; Krishnaj Gourab; Kenny S David
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group.

Authors:  Andrea D Furlan; Victoria Pennick; Claire Bombardier; Maurits van Tulder
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 4.  Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery, neurosurgery and orthopedics: guidelines for the surgeon scientist.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-12

5.  Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched cohort analysis.

Authors:  J G Heller; C C Edwards ; H Murakami; G E Rodts
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  A comparative study of surgical approaches for cervical compressive myelopathy.

Authors:  M Kawakami; T Tamaki; H Iwasaki; M Yoshida; M Ando; H Yamada
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  A prospective, randomized trial comparing expansile cervical laminoplasty and cervical laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy.

Authors:  Glen R Manzano; Gizelda Casella; Michael Y Wang; Steven Vanni; Allan D Levi
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.654

8.  Laminoplasty and skip laminectomy for cervical compressive myelopathy: range of motion, postoperative neck pain, and surgical outcomes in a randomized prospective study.

Authors:  Yasutsugu Yukawa; Fumihiko Kato; Keigo Ito; Yumiko Horie; Tetsurou Hida; Zenya Ito; Yukihiro Matsuyama
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Neurologic complications of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy.

Authors:  K Yonenobu; N Hosono; M Iwasaki; M Asano; K Ono
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Operative treatment of cervical myelopathy: cervical laminoplasty.

Authors:  Brett A Braly; David Lunardini; Chris Cornett; William F Donaldson
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2012-05-28
View more
  14 in total

Review 1.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2017.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Open-Door Laminoplasty, French-Door Laminoplasty, Laminectomy and Fusion, and Laminectomy Alone for Multilevel Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Bayesian Network Analysis.

Authors:  Xian Li; Hui Yu; Kristian Welle; Martin Gathen; Li Zhang; Jin Xiao; Koroush Kabir
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2021-11-23       Impact factor: 3.845

3.  Reoperation Rates Following Open-Door Cervical Laminoplasty.

Authors:  John A Rodriguez-Feo; Daniel Leas; Susan M Odum; Marc Angerame; Mark Kurd; Bruce V Darden; R Alden Milam
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-12-21

Review 4.  Posterolateral Fusion Versus Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ryan C Campbell; Ralph J Mobbs; Victor M Lu; Joshua Xu; Prashanth J Rao; Kevin Phan
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-05-31

5.  Clinical outcomes of epidural and intradural decompression for treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy.

Authors:  Genlong Jiao; Zhizhong Li; Pan Zhou; Jinpei Yang; Xueshi Li
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 1.671

6.  Is laminectomy and fusion the better choice than laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy with signal changes on magnetic resonance imaging? A comparison of two posterior surgeries.

Authors:  Xin He; Jia Nan Zhang; Tuan Jiang Liu; Ding Jun Hao
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-07-02       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Comparison of laminectomy and fusion vs laminoplasty in the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xiaojun Yuan; Chunmei Wei; Wenhua Xu; Xinrong Gan; Shengsheng Cao; Jiaquan Luo
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 1.889

8.  Clinical efficacy of laminectomy with instrumented fixation in treatment of adjacent segmental disease following ACCF surgery: a retrospective observational study of 48 patients.

Authors:  Sidong Yang; Dalong Yang; Lei Ma; Hui Wang; Wenyuan Ding
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-04-25       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Intradural extramedullary tumor in the stenotic cervical spine resected through open-door laminoplasty with hydroxyapatite spacers: report of two cases.

Authors:  Naohisa Miyakoshi; Daisuke Kudo; Michio Hongo; Yuji Kasukawa; Yoshinori Ishikawa; Yoichi Shimada
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2018-06-11       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Ten-Year Surgical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors for French-Door Laminoplasty in the Treatment of Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.

Authors:  Guoliang Chen; Xizhe Liu; Ningning Chen; Bailing Chen; Xuenong Zou; Fuxin Wei; Shaoyu Liu
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-05-06       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.