Literature DB >> 28862572

Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with posterior spinal fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: influence of cervical alignment on outcomes.

Darryl Lau1, Ethan A Winkler1, Khoi D Than2, Dean Chou1, Praveen V Mummaneni1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Cervical curvature is an important factor when deciding between laminoplasty and laminectomy with posterior spinal fusion (LPSF) for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). This study compares outcomes following laminoplasty and LPSF in patients with matched postoperative cervical lordosis. METHODS Adults undergoing laminoplasty or LPSF for cervical CSM from 2011 to 2014 were identified. Matched cohorts were obtained by excluding LPSF patients with postoperative cervical Cobb angles outside the range of laminoplasty patients. Clinical outcomes and radiographic results were compared. A subgroup analysis of patients with and without preoperative pain was performed, and the effects of cervical curvature on pain outcomes were examined. RESULTS A total of 145 patients were included: 101 who underwent laminoplasty and 44 who underwent LPSF. Preoperative Nurick scale score, pain incidence, and visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain scores were similar between the two groups. Patients who underwent LPSF had significantly less preoperative cervical lordosis (5.8° vs 10.9°, p = 0.018). Preoperative and postoperative C2-7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) and T-1 slope were similar between the two groups. Laminoplasty cases were associated with less blood loss (196.6 vs 325.0 ml, p < 0.001) and trended toward shorter hospital stays (3.5 vs 4.3 days, p = 0.054). The perioperative complication rate was 8.3%; there was no significant difference between the groups. LPSF was associated with a higher long-term complication rate (11.6% vs 2.2%, p = 0.036), with pseudarthrosis accounting for 3 of 5 complications in the LPSF group. Follow-up cervical Cobb angle was similar between the groups (8.8° vs 7.1°, p = 0.454). At final follow-up, LPSF had a significantly lower mean Nurick score (0.9 vs 1.4, p = 0.014). Among patients with preoperative neck pain, pain incidence (36.4% vs 31.3%, p = 0.629) and VAS neck pain (2.1 vs 1.8, p = 0.731) were similar between the groups. Similarly, in patients without preoperative pain, there was no significant difference in pain incidence (19.4% vs 18.2%, p = 0.926) and VAS neck pain (1.0 vs 1.1, p = 0.908). For laminoplasty, there was a significant trend for lower pain incidence (p = 0.010) and VAS neck pain (p = 0.004) with greater cervical lordosis, especially when greater than 20° (p = 0.011 and p = 0.018). Mean follow-up was 17.3 months. CONCLUSIONS For patients with CSM, LPSF was associated with slightly greater blood loss and a higher long-term complication rate, but offered greater neurological improvement than laminoplasty. In cohorts of matched follow-up cervical sagittal alignment, pain outcomes were similar between laminoplasty and LPSF patients. However, among laminoplasty patients, greater cervical lordosis was associated with better pain outcomes, especially for lordosis greater than 20°. Cervical curvature (lordosis) should be considered as an important factor in pain outcomes following posterior decompression for multilevel CSM.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CSM = cervical spondylotic myelopathy; EBL = estimated blood loss; JOA = Japanese Orthopaedic Association; LOS = length of stay; LPSF = laminectomy with posterior spinal fusion; SVA = sagittal vertical axis; VAS = visual analog scale; alignment; cervical spondylotic myelopathy; laminectomy; laminoplasty; posterior spinal fusion

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28862572     DOI: 10.3171/2017.4.SPINE16831

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


  20 in total

1.  [Biomechanical changes of sheep cervical spine after unilateral hemilaminectomy and different degrees of facetectomy].

Authors:  C Wu; Z Y Wang; G Z Lin; T Yu; B Liu; Y Si; Y B Zhang; Y C Li
Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban       Date:  2019-08-18

2.  Clinical comparison between simple laminectomy and laminectomy plus posterior instrumentation in surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy.

Authors:  G Gargiulo; M Girardo; A Rava; A Coniglio; P Cinnella; A Massè; F Fusini
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2019-02-08

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

Review 4.  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

5.  Extensor muscle-preserving laminectomy in treating multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy compared with laminoplasty.

Authors:  Zhiming Yu; Da He; Jiachao Xiong; Zhimin Pan; Lingxuan Feng; Jiang Xu; Zhimin Han; Cristian Gragnaniello; Hisashi Koga; Kevin Phan; Parisa Azimi; Jong-Joo Lee; Yoon Ha; Kai Cao
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-09

6.  Significance of Vertebral Body Sliding Osteotomy as a Surgical Strategy for the Treatment of Cervical Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament.

Authors:  Dong-Ho Lee; Sehan Park; Chul Gie Hong; Shinseok Kim; Jae Hwan Cho; Chang Ju Hwang; Jae Jun Yang; Choon Sung Lee
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-11-23

7.  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

8.  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

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.  Individualized management of giant anterior meningoceles-case series.

Authors:  YueLong Wang; Bin He; Jinhao Yang; Jianguo Xu; Jiagang Liu; Siqing Huang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.