Abstract
Although difficulties with neck mobility often interfere with patients’ activities of daily living (ADL) after cervical laminoplasty, there was no detailed study on the relation between the limitations of ADL accompanying postoperative reduced neck mobility and the cervical posterior approach. The aim of this study was to compare retrospectively the frequency of limitations of ADL accompanying neck mobility after laminoplasty preserving the semispinalis cervicis inserted into the C2 spinous process with that after laminoplasty reattaching the muscle to C2. Forty-nine patients after C4–C7 laminoplasty with C3 laminectomy preserving the semispinalis cervicis inserted into C2 (Group A) and 24 patients after C3–C7 laminoplasty reattaching the muscle (Group B) were evaluated. The frequency of postoperative limitations of ADL accompanying each of three neck movements of extension, flexion and rotation were investigated. The postoperative O–C7 angles at extension and flexion was measured on lateral extension and flexion radiographs of the cervical spine, respectively. The postoperative cervical range of motion in rotation was measured in the cranial view using a digital camera. Frequency of limitations of ADL accompanying extension was lower (P = 0.037) in Group A (2%) than in Group B (17%). Frequency of limitations of ADL accompanying flexion was similar in Group A (8%) and Group B (4%). Frequency of limitations of ADL accompanying rotation was lower (P = 0.031) in Group A (12%) than in Group B (33%). Average O–C7 angle at extension was significantly larger (P = 0.002) in Group A (147°) than in Group B (136°). Average O–C7 angle at flexion was similar in Group A (93°) and Group B (91°). Average range of motion in rotation was significantly larger (P = 0.004) in Group A (110°) than in Group B (91°). This retrospective study suggested that the frequency of limitations of ADL accompanying neck extension or rotation was lower after laminoplasty preserving the semispinalis cervicis inserted into C2 than after laminoplasty reattaching the muscle.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baba H, Mezawa Y, Furusawa N et al (1995) Flexibility and alignment of the cervical spine after laminoplasty for spondylotic myelopathy: a radiographic study. Int Orthop 19:116–121
Bartko JJ (1966) The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychol Rep 19:3–11
Chiba K, Toyama Y, Matsumoto M et al (2002) Segmental motor paralysis after expensive open-door laminoplasty. Spine 19:2108–2115
Conley MS, Meyer RA, Bloomberg JJ et al (1995) Noninvasive analysis of human neck muscle function. Spine 20:2505–2512
Conley MS, Stone MH, Nimmons M et al (1997) Specificity of resistance training responses in neck muscle size and strength. Eur J Appl Physiol 75:443–448
Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K et al (1981) Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine 6:354–364
Hosono N, Yonenobu K, Ono K (1996) Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty: a noticeable complication. Spine 21:1969–1973
Iizuka H, Shimizu T, Tateno K et al (2001) Extensor musculature of the cervical spine after laminoplasty: morphologic evaluation by coronal view of the magnetic resonance image. Spine 26:2220–2226
Iwasaki M, Kawaguchi Y, Kimura T et al (2002) Long-term of expensive laminoplasty for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine: more than 10 years follow up. J Neurosurg 96 (2 Suppl):180–189
Iwaya D, Harata S, Ueyama K et al (1999) Long term follow-up results of surgical treatments of cervical ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament in terms of quality of life (in Japanese). Rinsho Seikeigeka 34:503–508
Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishihara H et al (2003) Preventive measures for axial symptoms following cervical laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord 16:497–501
Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishihara H et al (2003) Minimum 10-year followup after en bloc cervical laminoplasty. Clin Orthop 294:129–139
Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Ishihara H et al (2000) Surgical outcome of cervical expansive laminoplasty in patients with diabetes mellitus. Spine 25:551–555
Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Ishihara H et al (1999) Axial symptoms after en bloc cervical laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord 12:392–395
Kimura I, Shingu H, Nasu Y et al (1995) Lon-term follow-up of cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated by canal-expansive laminoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 77B:956–961
Komagata M, Nishiyama M, Endo K et al (2004) Prophylaxis of C5 palsy after cervical expansive laminoplasty by bilateral partial foraminotomy. Spine J 4:650–655
Minoda Y, Nakamura H, Konishi S et al (2003) Palsy of the C5 nerve root after midsagittal-splitting laminoplasty of the cervical spine. Spine 28:1123–1127
Nakano K, Harata S, Suetsuna F et al (1992) Spinous process-splitting laminoplasty using hydroxyapatite spinous process spacer. Spine 17:S41–43
Nolan JP Jr, Sherk HH (1988) Biomechanical evaluation of the extensor musculature of the cervical spine. Spine 13:9–11
Ogawa Y, Chiba K, Matsumoto M et al (2005) Long-term results after expansive open-door laminoplasty for the segmental-type of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine: a comparison with nonsegmental-type lesions. J Neurosurg 3:198–204
Sasai K, Saito T, Araki S et al (2000) Cervical curvature after laminoplasty for spondylotic myelopathy - involvement of yellow ligament, semispinalis cervicis muscle, and nuchal ligament. J Spinal Disord 13:26–30
Satomi K, Nishu Y, Kohno T et al (1994) Long-term follow-up studies of open-door expansive laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine 19:507–510
Seichi A, Takeshita K, Ohishi I et al (2001) Long-term results of double-door laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine 26:479–487
Shiraishi T, Fukuda K, Yato Y et al (2003) Results of skip laminectomy-Minimum 2-year follow-up study compared with open-door laminoplasty. Spine 28:2667–2672
Takeuchi K, Yokoyama T, Aburakawa S et al (2005) Axial symptoms after cervical laminoplasty with C3 laminectomy compared with conventional C3–C7 laminoplasty: a modified laminoplasty preserving the semispinalis cervicis inserted into axis. Spine 30:2544–2549
Tomita K, Kawahara N, Toribatake Y et al (1998) Expansive midline T-saw laminoplasty (modified spinous-splitting) for the management of cervical myelopathy. Spine 23:32–37
Vasabada AN, Li S, Delp SL (1998) Influence of muscle morphometry and moment arms on the moment-generating capacity of human neck muscles. Spine 23:412–22
Wada E, Suzuki S, Kanazawa A et al (2001) Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a long-term follow-up study over 10 years. Spine 26:1443–1447
Yokoyama T, Takeuchi K, Aburakawa S et al (2004) The controversial points in cervical laminoplasty for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: in comparison with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (in Japanese). Bessatsu Seikeigeka 45:215–220
Yoshida M, Otani K, Shibasaki K et al (1992) Expansive laminoplasty with reattachment of spinous process and extensor musculature for cervical myelopathy. Spine 17:491–497
Yoshida M, Tamaki T, Kawakami M et al (2002) Does reconstruction of posterior ligamentous complex with extensor musculature decrease axial symptoms after cervical laminoplasty? Spine 27:1414–1418
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Takeuchi, K., Yokoyama, T., Ono, A. et al. Limitation of activities of daily living accompanying reduced neck mobility after laminoplasty preserving or reattaching the semispinalis cervicis into axis. Eur Spine J 17, 415–420 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0553-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0553-1