Share This Article:

Efficacy of Modified Expansive Open-Door Laminoplasty for Cervical Myelopathy

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:358KB) PP. 568-571
DOI: 10.4236/ss.2012.312112    3,177 Downloads   4,713 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Expansive open-door laminoplasty is used widely for the treatment of cervical spondylosis and Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament (OPLL). We have developed a unique modification of the surgical procedure to keep the lamina expanded, with the aim of preventing reclosure of the vertebral arch. To examine the effectiveness of and problems associated with the modified expansive open-door laminoplasty technique developed at our institution by evaluating the surgical outcomes. Methods and Materials: Fifty-six patients (46 men and 10 women) underwent the modified expansive open-door laminoplasty and were followed up for at least 1 year. Thirty-eight had Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy (CSM) and 18 had OPLL. The patients were 34 to 89 years of age (mean: 60.9 years). The severity of myelopathy was evaluated according to the Japanese Orthopaedic Association’s scoring system. Surgical outcomes were evaluated using Hirabayashi’s system for determining recovery rate. In the radiographic analysis, the following angles were measured before and after surgery: lordosis angle and Range of Motion (ROM) at C2 - C7 on lateral radiographs, and opening angle on computerized tomography (CT). The presence and absence of axial pain and postoperative C5 palsy were also evaluated. Results: The rate of JOA score improvement was about 60%, the lordosis angle observed on lateral radiographs was maintained. ROM decreased after surgery in both the CSM and OPLL groups, and the extent of the decrease was similar to that in previous reports. The opening angle of the lamina was 62°- 65° on post-operative CT. Axial pain was reported by 34% of patients. Conclusions: Our modified procedure produced satisfactory postoperative outcomes based on the clinical data and imaging findings for both CSM and OPLL. The advantage of this procedure is that it avoids potential complications associated with bone grafts or implants.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

E. Toh, Y. Yamamoto, D. Sakai, M. Sato, M. Watanabe and J. Mochida, "Efficacy of Modified Expansive Open-Door Laminoplasty for Cervical Myelopathy," Surgical Science, Vol. 3 No. 12, 2012, pp. 568-571. doi: 10.4236/ss.2012.312112.

References

[1] K. Hirabayashi, “Expansive Open-Door Laminoplasty for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy,” Shujutu, Vol. 32, No. 11, 1978, pp. 1159-1163.
[2] K. Hirabayashi, K. Watanabe, K. Wakano, N. Suzuki, K. Satomi and Y. Ishii, “Expansive Open-Door Laminoplasty for Cervical Spinal Stenotic Myelopathy,” Spine, Vol. 8, No. 7, 1983, pp. 693-699. doi:10.1097/00007632-198310000-00003
[3] K. Hirabayashi, Y. Toyama and K. Chiba, “Expansive Laminoplasty for Myelopathy in Ossification of the Longitudinal Ligament,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Vol. 359, 1999, pp. 35-48. doi:10.1097/00003086-199902000-00005
[4] H. Baba, N. Furusawa, Q. Chen and S. Imura, “Cervical Laminoplasty in Patients with Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligaments,” Paraplegia, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1995, pp. 25-29. doi:10.1038/sc.1995.6
[5] E. Frank and T. L. Keenen, “A Technique for Cervical Laminoplasty Using Miniplates,” British Journal Neurosurgery, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1994, pp. 197-199. doi:10.3109/02688699409027967
[6] T. Itoh and H. Tsuji, “Technical Improvements and Results of Laminoplasty for Compressive Myelopathy in the Cervical Spine,” Spine, Vol. 10, No. 8, 1985, pp. 729-736. doi:10.1097/00007632-198510000-00007
[7] Y. Kawaguchi, M. Kanamori, H. Ishihara, K. Ohmori, H. Nakamura and T. Kimura, “Minimum 10-Year Follow-Up after En Bloc Cervical Laminoplasty,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Vol. 411, 2003, pp. 129-139. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000069889.31220.62
[8] M. F. O’Brien, D. Peterson, A. T. Casey and H. A. Crockard, “A Novel Technique for Laminoplasty Augmentation of Spinal Canal Area Using Titanium Miniplate Stabilization,” Spine, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1996, pp. 474-484. doi:10.1097/00007632-199602150-00012
[9] N. Tanaka, K. Nakanishi, Y. Fujimoto, H. Sasaki, N. Kamei, T. Hamasaki, K. Yamada, R. Yamamoto, T. Nakamae and M. Ochi, “Expansive Laminoplasty for Cervical Myelopathy with Interconnected Porous Calcium Hydroxyapatite Ceramic Spacers: Comparison with Autogenous Bone Spacers,” Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques, Vol. 21, No. 8, 2008, pp. 547-552.
[10] H. Tsuji, “Laminoplasty for Patients with Compressive Myelopathy Due to So-Called Spinal Stenosis in Cervical and Thoracic Regions,” Spine, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1982, pp. 28-34. doi:10.1097/00007632-198200710-00002
[11] N. Tsuzuki, R. Abe, K. Saiki and T. Iizuka, “Tension-Band Laminoplasty of the Cervical Spine,” Intanational Orthopaedics, Vol. 20, No. 5, 1996, pp.275-284.
[12] J. Mochida, T. Nomura, M. Chiba, K. Nishimura and E. Toh, “Modified Expansive Open-Door Laminoplasty in Cervical Myelopathy,” Journal Spinal Disorders, Vol. 12, No. 5, 1999, pp. 386-391.
[13] N. Hosono, H. Sakaura, Y. Mukai, R. Fujii and H. Yoshikawa, “C3-6 Laminoplasty Takes over C3-7 Laminoplasty with Significantly Lower Incidence of Axial Neck Pain,” European Spine Journal, Vol. 15, No. 9, 2006, pp. 1375-1379. doi:10.1007/s00586-006-0089-9
[14] H. Sakaura, N. Hosono, Y. Mukai, M. Iwasaki and H. Yoshikawa, “Medium-Term Outcomes of C3-6 Laminoplasty for Cervical Myelopathy: A Prospective Study with a Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up,” European Spine Journal, Vol. 20, No. 6, 2011, pp. 928-933. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1690-0
[15] T. Takeuchi and Y. Shono, “Importance of Preserving the C7 Spinous Process and Attached Nuchal Ligament in French-Door Laminoplasty to Reduce Postoperative Axial Symptoms,” European Spine Journal, Vol. 16, No. 9, 2007, pp. 1417-1422. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0352-8
[16] T. Shiraishi, “Skip Laminectomy—A New Treatment for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy, Preserving Bilateral Muscular Attachments to the Spinous Processes: A Preliminary Report,” Spine Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2002, pp. 108-115. doi:10.1016/S1529-9430(01)00118-8
[17] M. Yoshida, T. Tamaki, M. Kawakami, N. Nakatani, M. Ando, H. Yamada and N. Hayashi, “Does Reconstruction of Posterior Ligamentous Complex with Extensor Musculature Decrease Axial Symptoms after Cervical Laminoplasty?” Spine, Vol. 27, No. 13, 2002, pp. 1414-1418. doi:10.1097/00007632-200207010-00008
[18] N. Hosono, H. Sakaura, Y. Mukai, T. Ishii and H. Yoshikawa, “En Bloc Laminoplasty without Dissection of Paraspinal Muscles,” Journal of Neurosurgery, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2005, pp. 29-33. doi:10.3171/spi.2005.3.1.0029
[19] S. Nakama, K. Nitanai, Y. Oohashi, T. Endo and Y. Hoshino, “Cervical Muscle Strength after Laminoplasty,” Journal of Orthopaedic Science, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2003, pp. 36-40. doi:10.1007/s007760300006
[20] K. Chiba, Y. Toyama, M. Matsumoto, H. Maruiwa, M. Watanabe and K. Hirabayashi, “Segmental Motor Paralysis after Expansive Open-Door Laminoplasty,” Spine, Vol. 27, No. 19, 2002, pp. 2108-2115. doi:10.1097/00007632-200210010-00006
[21] K. Satomi, J. Ogawa, Y. Ishii and K. Hirabayashi, “Short-Term Complications and Long-Term Results of Expansive Open-Door Laminoplasty for Cervical Stenotic Myelopathy,” The Spine Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2001, pp. 26-30. doi:10.1016/S1529-9430(01)00008-0
[22] H. Sakaura, N. Hosono, Y. Mukai, T. Ishii and H. Yoshikawa, “C5 Palsy after Decompression Surgery for Cervical Myelopathy,” Spine, Vol. 28, No. 21, 2003, pp. 2447-2451. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000090833.96168.3F

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.