Literature DB >> 28882525

Multilevel posterior foraminotomy with laminoplasty versus laminoplasty alone for cervical spondylotic myelopathy with radiculopathy: a comparative study.

Dong-Ho Lee1, Jae Hwan Cho1, Chang Ju Hwang1, Choon Sung Lee1, Chunghwan Kim2, Jung-Ki Ha3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Conventional laminoplasty is useful for expanding a stenotic spinal canal. However, it has limited use for the decompression of accompanying neural foraminal stenosis. As such, an additional posterior foraminotomy could be simultaneously applied, although this procedure carries a risk of segmental kyphosis and instability.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to elucidate the long-term surgical outcomes of additional posterior foraminotomy with laminoplasty (LF) for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) with radiculopathy. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: A retrospective comparative study was carried out. PATIENT SAMPLE: Ninety-eight consecutive patients who underwent laminoplasty for CSM with radiculopathy between January 2006 and December 2012 were screened for eligibility. This study included 66 patients, who were treated with a laminoplasty of two or more levels and followed up for more than 2 years after surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Neck Disability Index (NDI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, JOA recovery rates, and visual analog scale (VAS) were used to evaluate clinical outcomes. The C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis distance, cervical lordosis, range of motion (ROM), and angulation and vertebral slippage at the foraminotomy level were used to measure radiological outcomes using the whole spine anterioposterior or lateral and dynamic lateral radiographs.
METHODS: Sixty-six patients with CSM with radiculopathy involving two or more levels were consecutively treated with laminoplasty and followed up for more than 2 years after surgery. The first 26 patients underwent laminoplasty alone (LA group), whereas the next 40 patients underwent an additional posterior foraminotomy at stenotic neural foramens with radiating symptoms in addition to laminoplasty (LF group). In the LF group, the foraminotomy with less resection than 50% of facet joint to avoid segmental kyphosis and instability was performed at 78 segments (unilateral-to-bilateral ratio=57:21) and 99 sites. Clinical and radiographic data were assessed preoperatively and at 2-year follow-up and compared between the groups.
RESULTS: The NDI, JOA scores, JOA recovery rates, and VAS for neck and arm pain were improved significantly in both groups after surgery. The improvement in the VAS for arm pain was significantly greater in the LF group (from 5.55±2.52 to 1.85±2.39) than the LA group (from 5.48±2.42 to 3.40±2.68) (p<.001). Although cervical lordosis and ROM decreased postoperatively in both groups, there were no significant differences in the degree of reduction between the LF and LA groups. Although the postoperative focal angulation and slippage were slightly increased in the LF group, this was not to a significant degree. Furthermore, segmental kyphosis and instability were not observed in the LF group, regardless of whether the patient underwent a unilateral or bilateral foraminotomy.
CONCLUSIONS: Additional posterior foraminotomy with laminoplasty is likely to improve arm pain more significantly than laminoplasty alone by decompressing nerve roots. Also, performing posterior foraminotomy via multiple levels or bilaterally did not significantly affect segmental malalignment and instability. Therefore, when a laminoplasty is performed for CSM with radiculopathy, an additional posterior foraminotomy could be an efficient and safe treatment that improves both myelopathy symptoms and radicular arm pain.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical; Foraminal stenosis; Instability; Kyphosis; Myelopathy; Open door laminoplasty; Posterior foraminotomy; Radiculopathy

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28882525     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.08.222

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  5 in total

1.  [Effect of prophylactic C 4, 5 foraminal dilatation in posterior cervical open-door surgery on postoperative C 5 nerve root palsy syndrome].

Authors:  Xinwei Yuan; Lun Wan; Jiang Hu; Wei Zhang
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2021-10-15

2.  Is brace necessary after cervical surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Yang Mao; Zhao Jindong; Fang Zhaohui
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-07-08       Impact factor: 1.817

3.  One-stage posterior laminectomy with instrumented fusion and foraminotomy for cervical ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament with radiculopathy pain.

Authors:  Bao Su; Jieliang Shen; Xiaoji Luo; Zhengxue Quan; Dianming Jiang; Xiaohua Peng; Ke Tang
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-04-26       Impact factor: 2.359

4.  Efficacy of Posterior Cervical Laminectomy and Decompression plus Lateral Mass Screw-Rod Internal Fixation in the Treatment of Multisegment Cervical Spinal Canal Stenosis and Effects on Cervical Curvature and Range of Motion Parameters.

Authors:  Bo Liu; Yufei Wang; Yaning Zhang
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2021-10-15       Impact factor: 2.629

5.  Aggravation and subsequent disappearance of cervical disc herniation after cervical open-door laminoplasty: A case report.

Authors:  Yang Meng; Xiaofei Wang; Beiyu Wang; Tingkui Wu; Hao Liu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 1.889

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.