| Literature DB >> 27366246 |
Niraj Kumar Srivastava1, Sunita Singh1, Shishu Pal Singh Chauhan1, Nitya Nand Gopal1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to discuss the technique of midsagittal splitting laminoplasty and to compare its short-term follow-up results with laminectomy in cases of compressive cervical spinal cord myelopathy.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical spondylitis; compressive spinal myelopathy; laminectomy; laminoplasty
Year: 2016 PMID: 27366246 PMCID: PMC4849288 DOI: 10.4103/1793-5482.145089
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian J Neurosurg
Indications and contraindications of laminoplasty[3]
Nurick's classification of disability
Neurosurgical cervical spine scoring
Odom's criteria for final outcome
Figure 1(a) Exposed diseased cervical vertebras. (b) Laminas were excised enblock with a spino-ligamentous complex. (c) Tunnels were drilled into adjacent laminas on either side. (d) Midline saggital splitting of the inner table of lamina up to the tip of spinous process. (e) Splitted laminas were repositioned with a nonabsorbable suture. (f) Completed laminoplasty
Figure 2(a) The inner table of individual lamina was splitted by either chesal and hammer, or (b, c) via microspeed power burr. (d) Individual lamina splitted in the midline. (e) Splitted laminas were repositioned with steel wires
Figure 3Pictoreal diagram showing basis of the technique (dotted line denotes line of laminectomy). (a) Preoperative narrow antero-posterior spinal diameter. (b) Increased antero-posterior diameter of the spinal canal after laminoplasty
Figure 4(a) Preoperative X-ray: Lateral view of cervical spine showing loss of cervical lordosis, anterior and posterior osteophytosis suggestive of cervical spondylosis. (b) Postoperative X-ray showing loss of posterior osteophytes and slight regain of lordosis
Preoperative and follow up Nurick's grades
Comparison of NCSS scores at the end of 2 years
Figure 5Outcome at the end of 2 years (Odoms’ criteria) in both laminoplasty and laminectomy groups
Conclusions drawn from our study