Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background context

Laminoplasty and laminectomy with fusion are two common procedures for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Controversy remains regarding the superior surgical treatment.

Purpose

To compare short-term follow-up of laminoplasty to laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Study design/setting

Retrospective review comparing all patients undergoing surgical treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy by a single surgeon.

Patient sample

All patients undergoing laminoplasty or laminectomy with fusion by a single surgeon over a 5-year period (2007–2011).

Outcome measures

Cervical alignment and range of motion on pre- and post-operative radiographs and clinical outcome measures including Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, neck disability index (NDI), short form-12 mental (SF-12M) and physical (SF-12P) composite scores and visual analog pain scores for neck (VAS-N) and arm (VAS-A).

Methods

Patients undergoing laminoplasty or laminectomy with fusion by a single surgeon were reviewed. Cohorts of 41 laminoplasty patients and 31 laminectomy with fusion patients were selected based on strict criteria. The cohorts were well matched based on pre-operative clinical scores, radiographic measurements, and demographics. The average follow-up was 19.2 months for laminoplasty and 18.2 months for laminectomy with fusion. Evaluated outcomes included Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, neck disability index (NDI), short form-12 (SF-12), visual analog pain scores (VAS), cervical sagittal alignment, cervical range of motion, length of stay, cost and complications.

Results

The improvement in JOA, SF-12 and VAS scores was similar in the two cohorts after surgery. There was no significant change in cervical sagittal alignment in either cohort. Range-of-motion decreased in both cohorts, but to a greater degree after laminectomy with fusion. C5 nerve root palsy and infection were the most common complications in both cohorts. Laminectomy with fusion was associated with a higher rate of C5 nerve root palsy and overall complications. The average hospital length of stay and cost were significantly less with laminoplasty.

Conclusions

This study provides evidence that laminoplasty may be superior to laminectomy with fusion in preserving cervical range of motion, reducing hospital stay and minimizing cost. However, the significance of these differences remains unclear, as laminoplasty clinical outcome scores were generally comparable to laminectomy with fusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rao RD, Gourab K, David KS (2006) Operative treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:1619–1640. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00014

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Clarke E, Robinson PK (1956) Cervical myelopathy: a complication of cervical spondylosis. Brain 79:483–510

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fujiwara K, Yonenobu K, Ebara S, Yamashita K, Ono K (1989) The prognosis of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy. An analysis of the factors involved. J Bone Joint Surg Br 71:393–398

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Suri A, Chabbra RP, Mehta VS, Gaikwad S, Pandey RM (2003) Effect of intramedullary signal changes on the surgical outcome of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J 3:33–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Traynelis VC, Arnold PM, Fourney DR, Bransford RJ, Fischer DJ, Skelly AC (2013) Alternative procedures for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: arthroplasty, oblique corpectomy, skip laminectomy: evaluation of comparative effectiveness and safety. Spine 38:S210–S231. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000000009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lonstein JE (1977) Post-laminectomy kyphosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 128:93–100

    Google Scholar 

  7. Guigui P, Benoist M, Deburge A (1998) Spinal deformity and instability after multilevel cervical laminectomy for spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 23:440–447

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dai L, Ni B, Yuan W, Jia L (1998) Radiculopathy after laminectomy for cervical compression myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:846–849

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaye ID, Marascalchi BJ, Macagno AE, Lafage VA, Bendo JA, Passias PG (2015) Predictors of morbidity and mortality among patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated surgically. Eur Spine J 24:2910–2917. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-4010-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gonzalez-Feria L, Peraita-Peraita P (1975) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a cooperative study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 78:19–33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Maurer PK, Ellenbogen RG, Ecklund J, Simonds GR, van Dam B, Ondra SL (1991) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: treatment with posterior decompression and Luque rectangle bone fusion. Neurosurgery 28:680–683 (discussion 683–684)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Huang RC, Girardi FP, Poynton AR, Cammisa FP Jr (2003) Treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myeloradiculopathy with posterior decompression and fusion with lateral mass plate fixation and local bone graft. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:123–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cherubino P, Benazzo F, Borromeo U, Perle S (1990) Degenerative arthritis of the adjacent spinal joints following anterior cervical spinal fusion: clinicoradiologic and statistical correlations. Ital J Orthop Traumatol 16:533–543

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kato Y, Iwasaki M, Fuji T, Yonenobu K, Ochi T (1998) Long-term follow-up results of laminectomy for cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Neurosurg 89:217–223. doi:10.3171/jns.1998.89.2.0217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hosono N, Yonenobu K, Ono K (1996) Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty. A noticeable complication. Spine 21:1969–1973

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ratliff JK, Cooper PR (2003) Cervical laminoplasty: a critical review. J Neurosurg 98:230–238

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nurboja B, Kachramanoglou C, Choi D (2011) Cervical laminectomy versus laminoplasty: is there a difference in outcome and post-operative pain? Neurosurgery. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e31823cf16b

    Google Scholar 

  18. Manzano GR, Casella G, Wang MY, Vanni S, Levi AD (2012) A prospective, randomized trial comparing expansile cervical laminoplasty and cervical laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy. Neurosurg 70:264–277. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182305669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Highsmith JM, Dhall SS, Haid RW Jr, Rodts GE Jr, Mummaneni PV (2011) Treatment of cervical stenotic myelopathy: a cost and outcome comparison of laminoplasty versus laminectomy and lateral mass fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 14:619–625. doi:10.3171/2011.1.SPINE10206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Heller JG, Edwards CC 2nd, Murakami H, Rodts GE (2001) Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched cohort analysis. Spine 26:1330–1336

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hukuda S, Ogata M, Mochizuki T, Shichikawa K (1988) Laminectomy versus laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy: brief report. J Bone Joint Surg Br 70:325–326

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee CH, Lee J, Kang JD, Hyun SJ, Kim KJ, Jahng TA, Kim HJ (2015) Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: a meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine 22:589–595. doi:10.3171/2014.10.spine1498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bartels RH, van Tulder MW, Moojen WA, Arts MP, Peul WC (2015) Laminoplasty and laminectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 2):160–167. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2771-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gok B, McLoughlin GS, Sciubba DM, McGirt MJ, Chaichana KL, Wolinsky JP, Bydon A, Gokaslan ZL, Witham TF (2009) Surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy with laminectomy and instrumented fusion. Neurol Res 31:1097–1101. doi:10.1179/174313209X383277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Houten JK, Cooper PR (2003) Laminectomy and posterior cervical plating for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: effects on cervical alignment, spinal cord compression, and neurological outcome. Neurosurgery 52:1081–1087 (discussion 1087–1088)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kumar VG, Rea GL, Mervis LJ, McGregor JM (1999) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: functional and radiographic long-term outcome after laminectomy and posterior fusion. Neurosurgery 44:771–777 (discussion 777–778)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Epstein NE (2015) Commentary on article: laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: a meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes by Chang-Hyun Lee et al. Surg Neurol Int 6:S379–S382. doi:10.4103/2152-7806.163957

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Manzano GR, Casella G, Wang MY, Vanni S, Levi AD (2012) A prospective, randomized trial comparing expansile cervical laminoplasty and cervical laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy. Neurosurgery 70:264–277. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182305669

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hukuda S, Mochizuki T, Ogata M, Shichikawa K, Shimomura Y (1985) Operations for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. A comparison of the results of anterior and posterior procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 67:609–615

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Furlan JC, Kalsi-Ryan S, Kailaya-Vasan A, Massicotte EM, Fehlings MG (2011) Functional and clinical outcomes following surgical treatment in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective study of 81 cases. J Neurosurg Spine 14:348–355. doi:10.3171/2010.10.spine091029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bartels RH, Verbeek AL, Grotenhuis JA (2007) Design of Lamifuse: a randomised, multi-centre controlled trial comparing laminectomy without or with dorsal fusion for cervical myeloradiculopathy. BMC Musculoskelet disorders 8:111. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-8-111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther 14:409–415

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Campbell MJ, Anderson PA (2010) Neck disability index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion. Spine J 10:469–474. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Team RDC (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  35. Revelle W (2013) Psych: procedures for personality and psychological research, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA. http://cran.r-projectorg/package=psych. Version = 142. Accessed 01 Feb 2015

  36. Developer TJA (2012) Epitools: epidemiology tools. R package version 0.5-7. http://cran.r-projectorg/package=epitools. Accessed 01 Feb 2015

  37. Woods BI, Hohl J, Lee J, Donaldson W 3rd, Kang J (2011) Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:688–695. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1653-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Nurboja B, Kachramanoglou C, Choi D (2012) Cervical laminectomy vs laminoplasty: is there a difference in outcome and postoperative pain? Neurosurgery 70:965–970. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e31823cf16b (discussion 970)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Nassr A, Eck JC, Ponnappan RK, Zanoun RR, Donaldson WF 3rd, Kang JD (2012) The incidence of C5 palsy after multilevel cervical decompression procedures: a review of 750 consecutive cases. Spine 37:174–178. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318219cfe9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bydon M, Macki M, Kaloostian P, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Belzberg AJ, Bydon A, Witham TF (2014) Incidence and prognostic factors of c5 palsy: a clinical study of 1001 cases and review of the literature. Neurosurgery 74:595–604. doi:10.1227/neu.0000000000000322 (discussion 604-595)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wu FL, Sun Y, Pan SF, Zhang L, Liu ZJ (2014) Risk factors associated with upper extremity palsy after expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy. Spine J 14:909–915. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Yamanaka K, Tachibana T, Moriyama T, Okada F, Maruo K, Inoue S, Horinouchi Y, Yoshiya S (2014) C-5 palsy after cervical laminoplasty with instrumented posterior fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 20:1–4. doi:10.3171/2013.9.spine12952

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Tetreault L, Singh A, Fawcett M, Nater A, Fehlings MG (2015) An assessment of the key predictors of perioperative complications in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing surgical treatment: results from a survey of 916 AOSpine international members. World Neurosurg. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2015.01.021

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Financial and material support

No authors received financial support for any of the work reported herein.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Box 2807, 335 Baker House, 200 Trent Drive, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    Daniel J. Blizzard, Adam M. Caputo, Mitchell R. Klement, Keith W. Michael & Christopher R. Brown

  2. Department of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Charles Z. Sheets

  3. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

    Robert E. Isaacs

Authors
  1. Daniel J. Blizzard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adam M. Caputo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charles Z. Sheets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mitchell R. Klement
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Keith W. Michael
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Robert E. Isaacs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Christopher R. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel J. Blizzard.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blizzard, D.J., Caputo, A.M., Sheets, C.Z. et al. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of spondylotic cervical myelopathy: short-term follow-up. Eur Spine J 26, 85–93 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4746-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4746-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation