OBJECTIVES: To examine clinical outcomes following expansive open-door laminoplasty (EOLP) in the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and the factors that influence these outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective analysis in CSM patients following EOLP investigated the relationship between recovery rate, based on the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, and the impact of age, duration of CSM, and axial symptoms, including the effect of EOLP on cervical curvature. RESULTS: In total, 79 CSM patients were included. Overall, the pre-and postoperative (1 year after surgery) mean ± SD JOA scores were 9.6 ± 1.4 and 14.7 ± 1.9, respectively, indicating an improvement of 68.9%. Factors that were significantly related to ‘excellent’ (≥ 75%) or ‘good’ (≥ 50% – < 75%) recovery rates included a high preoperative JOA score, short duration of CSM (≤ 12 months) and patient age < 50 years. Significant reductions in cervical curvature angle were only observed in patients with axial symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that CSM should be treated early. The severity of CSM, the patient's age, cervical curvature angle, operation technique and axial symptoms play important roles in clinical outcomes.
HirabayashiKMiyakawaJSatomiK: Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1981; 6: 354–364.
4.
HirabayashiKToyamaY: Choice of surgical procedure for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligaments. In: OPLL, Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament (YonenobuKSakōTOnoK, eds). Tokyo: Springer, 1997; pp 135–142.
5.
HirabayashiKToyamaYChibaK: Expansive laminoplasty for myelopathy in ossification of the longitudinal ligament. Clin Orthop Relat Res1999; 359: 35–48.
Japanese Orthopaedic Association: Scoring system for cervical myelopathy. J Jpn Orthop Assoc1994; 68: 490–503 [in Japanese].
8.
ZengYDangGTMaQJ: Evaluation of neck moving ability after anterior cervical fusion. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi2004; 42: 1481–1484 [in Chinese, English abstract].
9.
GoreDRSepicSBGardnerGM: Roentgenographic findings of the cervical spine in asymptomatic people. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1986; 11: 521–524.
10.
RowlandLP: Surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: time for a controlled trial. Neurology1992; 42: 5–13.
11.
OnoKOtaHTadaK: Cervical myelopathy secondary to multiple spondylotic protrusions: A clinicopathologic study. Spine1977; 2: 109–125.
12.
BreigATurnbullIHasslerO: Effects of mechanical stresses on the spinal cord in cervical spondylosis. A study on fresh cadaver material. J Neurosurg1966; 25: 45–56.
13.
AlkerG: Neuroradiology of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1988; 13: 850–853.
14.
MachinoMYukawaYHidaT: Can elderly patients recover adequately after laminoplasty? A comparative study of 520 patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2012; 37: 667–671.
15.
LeeTTGreenBAGromelskiEB: Safety and stability of open-door cervical expansive laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord1998; 11: 12–15.
16.
HellerJGEdwardsCC2ndMurakamiH: Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched cohort analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2001; 26: 1330–1336.
17.
SubramaniamVChamberlainRHTheodoreN: Biomechanical effects of laminoplasty versus laminectomy: stenosis and stability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2009; 34: E573–E578.
18.
SakauraHHosonoNMukaiY: Preservation of the nuchal ligament plays an important role in preventing unfavorable radiologic changes after laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech2008; 21: 338–343.
19.
NolanJPJrSherkHH: Biomechanical evaluation of the extensor musculature of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1988; 13: 9–11.
20.
YoshidaMOtaniKShibasakiK: Expansive laminoplasty with reattachment of spinous process and extensor musculature for cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1992; 17: 491–497.
21.
O'BrienMFPetersonDCaseyAT: A novel technique for laminoplasty augmentation of spinal canal area using titanium miniplate stabilization. A computerized morphometric analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1996; 21: 474–483.
22.
ChenGDYangHLWangGL: Validity of titanium miniplate fixation in cervical expansive open-door laminoplasty. Chin J Spine Spinal Cord2010; 20: 850–854 [in Chinese].
23.
LiuJEbraheimNASanfordCGJr: Preservation of the spinous process—ligament– muscle complex to prevent kyphotic deformity following laminoplasty. Spine J2007; 7: 159–164.
WangJMRohKJKimDJ: A new method of stabilising the elevated laminae in open-door laminoplasty using an anchor system. J Bone Joint Surg Br1998; 80: 1005–1008.
26.
DeutschHMummaneniPVRodtsGE: Posterior cervical laminoplasty using a new plating system: technical note. J Spinal Disord Tech2004; 17: 317–320.
27.
HosonoNSakauraHMukaiY: C3–6 laminoplasty takes over C3–7 laminoplasty with significantly lower incidence of axial neck pain. Eur Spine J2006; 15: 1375–1379.
28.
KowatariKUeyamaKSannoheA: Preserving the C7 spinous process with its muscles attached: effect on axial symptoms after cervical laminoplasty. J Orthop Sci2009; 14: 279–284.
29.
MatsumotoMChibaKToyamaY: Surgical treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament and its outcomes: posterior surgery by laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2012; 37: E303–E308.
30.
TanakaSTashiroTGomiA: Cervical unilateral open-door laminoplasty with titanium miniplates through newly designed hydroxyapatite spacers. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo)2011; 51: 673–677.
