Literature DB >> 9516698

Spinal deformity and instability after multilevel cervical laminectomy for spondylotic myelopathy.

P Guigui1, M Benoist, A Deburge.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A retrospective radiographic and medical record analysis of 58 patients.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the incidence and consequences of cervical spinal deformity and instability after multilevel laminectomy in adult patients with myelopathy caused by cervical spondylosis and to determine the usefulness of preoperative dynamic roentgenographic films in the prevention of postoperative destabilization. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Extensive cervical laminectomy has been widely used in the treatment of progressive myelopathy secondary to stenotic conditions. Complications of this procedure, including spinal instability, accelerated spondylotic changes, postoperative spinal deformity, and constriction of the dura mater by formation of extradural scar tissue formation have been recognized. However, the frequency of these complications is probably overestimated, and their effect on clinical outcome remains unknown.
METHODS: Fifty-eight patients older than 30 years who underwent a laminectomy at more than three levels without fusion for myelopathy secondary to cervical spondylosis were reviewed retrospectively with an average follow-up of 3.6 years. Functional results were evaluated according to the Japanese Orthopaedic Association's scoring system. Lateral views in neutral position, in flexion, and in extension of the preoperative cervical roentgenograms were analyzed in comparison with the last follow-up films to identify the changes in the curvature of the cervical column, in the range of motion of the neck, and in the intervertebral angular mobility and anteroposterior displacement of the vertebral bodies and finally to quantify the incidence of spinal instability.
RESULTS: In 18 patients (31%), postoperative changes in the type of cervical spine curvature developed. Fifteen patients (25%) had destabilization at one or more levels. Deformities of the cervical spine occurring after surgery do not appear to cause symptoms or neurologic abnormalities. Destabilization required repeat surgery in 3 patients. All the levels appearing to be destabilized on the postoperative films were hypermobile on the preoperative dynamic radiographs. Preoperative olisthesis Without hypermobility is not a factor of risk in postoperative destabilization.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of preoperative dynamic radiographs should improve the selection of patients undergoing laminectomy for the treatment of multilevel cervical cord compression. Dynamic radiographs may also reinforce the need for such adjunctive procedures as fusion and instrumentation, to prevent postoperative destabilization. Preoperative olisthesis with hypermobility in sagittal or horizontal planes must be fused and instrumented.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9516698     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199802150-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  34 in total

1.  Biomechanics of cervical laminoplasty: kinetic studies comparing different surgical techniques, temporal effects and the degree of level involvement.

Authors:  Christian M Puttlitz; Vedat Deviren; Jason A Smith; Frank S Kleinstueck; Quy N H Tran; Ralph W Thurlow; Pamela Eisele; Jeffrey C Lotz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-03-06       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Cervical laminectomy and instrumented lateral mass fusion: techniques, pearls and pitfalls.

Authors:  Michael Mayer; Oliver Meier; Alexander Auffarth; Heiko Koller
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Degenerative spondylolisthesis does not influence surgical results of laminoplasty in elderly cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients.

Authors:  Hideki Shigematsu; Yurito Ueda; Toshichika Takeshima; Munehisa Koizumi; Nobuhisa Satoh; Hiroaki Matsumori; Takuya Oshima; Masato Tanaka; Atsuo Kugai; Yoshinori Takakura; Yasuhito Tanaka
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-02-27       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Comparison of anterior approach versus posterior approach for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Jiaquan Luo; Kai Cao; Sheng Huang; Liangping Li; Ting Yu; Cong Cao; Rui Zhong; Ming Gong; Zhiyu Zhou; Xuenong Zou
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  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

6.  Radiographic analysis of type II odontoid fractures in a geriatric patient population: description and pathomechanism of the "Geier"-deformity.

Authors:  Maximilian Reinhold; C Bellabarba; R Bransford; J Chapman; W Krengel; M Lee; T Wagner
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-07-28       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of spondylotic cervical myelopathy: short-term follow-up.

Authors:  Daniel J Blizzard; Adam M Caputo; Charles Z Sheets; Mitchell R Klement; Keith W Michael; Robert E Isaacs; Christopher R Brown
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Barrett I Woods; Justin Hohl; Joon Lee; William Donaldson; James Kang
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Posterior surgery for cervical myelopathy: laminectomy, laminectomy with fusion, and laminoplasty.

Authors:  John M Rhee; Sushil Basra
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2008-12-31

Review 10.  Laminectomy and fusion vs laminoplasty for multi-level cervical myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Daniel B Scherman; Joshua Xu; Vannessa Leung; Sohaib Virk; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-06-24       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.