G Gargiulo1, M Girardo1, A Rava2, A Coniglio1, P Cinnella1, A Massè2, F Fusini3. 1. Spine Surgery Unit, Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre, Azienda Ospedaliera Città della Salute e della Scienza, Via Zuretti 29, Turin, Italy. 2. Department of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre, Azienda Ospedaliera Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Turin, Via Zuretti 29, Turin, Italy. 3. Department of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre, Azienda Ospedaliera Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Turin, Via Zuretti 29, Turin, Italy. fusinif@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Posterior stabilization in patients treated with laminectomy for spondylotic cervical myelopathy is still a debate. Despite both being reported in literature by several authors, some controversies still exist. The aim of this study is to compare clinical and radiological outcomes in patients treated with laminectomy or laminectomy with posterior stabilization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 42 patients affected by cervical myelopathy (mean age 70.43 ± 5.03 years), 19 treated with laminectomy (group A) and 23 with laminectomy and posterior instrumentation (group B). Neurological status was assessed with Nurick scale, pain with VAS and radiological parameters with C2-C7 SVA, T1 slope and C2-C7 lordosis, clinical function with modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (JOA). Also, surgery time and blood loss were recorded. Student's t test was used for continuous variables, while Kruskal-Wallis test was used for categorical values. RESULTS: No differences were found in postoperative Nurick scale (p = 0.587), VAS (p = 0.62), mJOA (p = 0.197) and T1 slope (p = 0.559), while laminectomy with fusion showed better postoperative cervical lordosis (p = 0.007) and C2-C7 SVA (p < 0.00001), but higher blood loss (p < 0.00001) and surgical time (p < 0.00001). Both groups showed better Nurick scale (p = 0.00017 for group A and p = 0.00081 for group B), VAS (p = 0.02 for group A and p = 0.046 for group B) and mJOA (p < 0.00001 for both groups) than preoperative values. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments are a valuable choice, offering some benefits and disadvantages against each other. Each procedure must be carefully evaluated on the basis of patients' general status, preoperative pain, signs of instability and potential benefits from cervical alignment correction.
BACKGROUND: Posterior stabilization in patients treated with laminectomy for spondylotic cervical myelopathy is still a debate. Despite both being reported in literature by several authors, some controversies still exist. The aim of this study is to compare clinical and radiological outcomes in patients treated with laminectomy or laminectomy with posterior stabilization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 42 patients affected by cervical myelopathy (mean age 70.43 ± 5.03 years), 19 treated with laminectomy (group A) and 23 with laminectomy and posterior instrumentation (group B). Neurological status was assessed with Nurick scale, pain with VAS and radiological parameters with C2-C7 SVA, T1 slope and C2-C7 lordosis, clinical function with modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (JOA). Also, surgery time and blood loss were recorded. Student's t test was used for continuous variables, while Kruskal-Wallis test was used for categorical values. RESULTS: No differences were found in postoperative Nurick scale (p = 0.587), VAS (p = 0.62), mJOA (p = 0.197) and T1 slope (p = 0.559), while laminectomy with fusion showed better postoperative cervical lordosis (p = 0.007) and C2-C7 SVA (p < 0.00001), but higher blood loss (p < 0.00001) and surgical time (p < 0.00001). Both groups showed better Nurick scale (p = 0.00017 for group A and p = 0.00081 for group B), VAS (p = 0.02 for group A and p = 0.046 for group B) and mJOA (p < 0.00001 for both groups) than preoperative values. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments are a valuable choice, offering some benefits and disadvantages against each other. Each procedure must be carefully evaluated on the basis of patients' general status, preoperative pain, signs of instability and potential benefits from cervical alignment correction.
Authors: Ioannis D Gelalis; Dimitrios V Papadopoulos; Dionysios K Giannoulis; Andreas G Tsantes; Anastasios V Korompilias Journal: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Date: 2017-10-06
Authors: S Tim Yoon; Robin E Hashimoto; Annie Raich; Christopher I Shaffrey; John M Rhee; K Daniel Riew Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 3.468