To evaluate the prognostic factors that affect the surgical outcome of laminoplasty in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy.
Methods
This is a retrospective review of 43 cases of multilevel cervical compressive myelopathy treated operatively with expansive laminoplasty (Itoh surgical technique), from June 1989 to August 2008. The mean follow-up duration was 7 years. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, Hirabayashi recovery rate and improvement of Pavlov's ratio were used to assess the clinical results after laminoplasty.
Results
The mean Japanese Orthopaedic Association score improved from 9.7 to 13.7 points after laminoplasty (p < 0.001), with 65.1% excellent or good results. The Pavlov ratio improved from 0.71 to 0.9 after operation (p < 0.001). Excellent or good surgical outcome is demonstrated in patients aged <70 years.
Conclusion
Laminoplasty is a viable surgical option for patients with three or more levelsofcervical cord compression. Patients youngerthan 70 years predict a favourable surgical outcome.
HirabayashiK, ToyamaY, ChibaK.Expansive laminoplasty for myelopathy inossification of the longitudinal ligament. Clin Orthop Relat Res1999;359:35–48.
3.
RaoRD, GourabK, DavidKS. Operative treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am2006;88:1619–40.
4.
KimuraI, ShinguH, NasuY.Long-term follow-up of cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated by canal-expansive laminoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br1995;77:956–61.
5.
TanakaJ, SekiN, TokimuraF, Operative results of canal-expansive laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy in elderly patients. Spine1999;24:2308–12.
6.
ChibaK, OgawaY, IshiiK, Long-term results of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy-average 14-year follow-up study. Spine2006;31:2998–3005.
7.
ApfelbaumRI, KriskovichMD, HallerJR. On the incidence, cause, and prevention of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsies during anterior cervical spine surgery. Spine2000;25:2906–12.
8.
EmerySE, SmithMD, BohlmanHH. Upper-airway obstruction after multilevel cervical corpectomy for myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am1991;73:544–51.
9.
RileyLH3rd, SkolaskyRL, AlbertTJ, Dysphagia after anterior cervical decompression and fusion: prevalence and risk factors from a longitudinal cohort study. Spine2005;30:2564–9.
10.
RiewKD, SethiNS, DevneyJ, Complications of buttress plate stabilization of cervical corpectomy. Spine1999;24:2404–10.
11.
FlynnTB. Neurologic complications of anterior cervical interbody fusion. Spine1982;7:536–9.
12.
LeeTT, GreenBA, GromelskiEB. Safety and stability of open-door cervical expansive laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord1998;11:12–5.
13.
ItohT, TsujiH.Technical improvements and results of laminoplasty for compressive myelopathy in the cervical spine. Spine1985;10:729–36.
O'BrienMF, PetersonD, CaseyAT, A novel technique for laminoplasty augmentation of spinal canal area using titanium miniplate stabilization. A computerized morphometric analysis. Spine1996;21:474–83.
16.
RheeJM, RegisterB, HamasakiT, Plate-only open door laminoplasty maintains stable spinal canal expansion with high rates of hinge union and no plate failures. Spine2011;36:9–14.
17.
SakauraH, HosonoN, MukaiY, Long-term outcome of laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy due to disc herniation: a comparative study of laminoplasty and anterior spinal fusion. Spine2005;30:756–9.
18.
KawakamiM, TamakiT, IwasakiH, A comparative study of surgical approaches for cervical compressive myelopathy. Clin Orthop Relat Res2000;381:129–36.
19.
WadaE, SuzukiS, KanazawaA, Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a long-term follow-up study over 10 years. Spine2001;26:1443–7.
SudaK, AbumiK, ItoM, Local kyphosis reduces surgical outcomes of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine2003;28:1258–62.
22.
HaleJJ, GrusonKI, SpivakJM. Laminoplasty: a review of its role in compressive cervical myelopathy. Spine J2006;6:289S–98S.
23.
GotoT, OhataK, TakamiT, Hydroxyapatite laminar spacers and titanium miniplates in cervical laminoplasty. J Neurosurg2002;97:323–9.
24.
SakauraH, HosonoN, MukaiY, C5 palsy after decompression surgery for cervical myelopathy: review of the literature. Spine2003;28:2447–51.
25.
KatoM, NakamuraH, KonishiS, Effect of preserving paraspinal muscles on postoperative axial pain in the selective cervical laminoplasty. Spine2008;33:455–9.
26.
YamazakiT, YanakaK, SatoH, Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical results and factors affecting outcome with special reference to age differences. Neurosurgery2003;52:122–6.
27.
ChungSS, LeeCS, ChungKH. Factors affecting the surgical results of expansive laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Int Orthop2002;26:334–8.
28.
YoneK, SakouT, YanaseM, Preoperative and postoperative magnetic resonance image evaluations of the spinal cord in cervical myelopathy. Spine1992;17:S388–92.
29.
MorioY, YamamotoK, KuranobuK, Does increased signal intensity of the spinal cord on MR images due to cervical myelopathy predict prognosis?Arch Orthop Trauma Surg1994;113:254–9.
30.
AhnJS, LeeJK, KimBK. Prognostic factors that affect the surgical outcome of the laminoplasty in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Orthop Surg2010;2: 98–104.
