European Spine Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 1869–1874 | Cite as

Laminar closure rates in patients with cervical myelopathies treated with either open-door laminoplasty with reattachment of spinous processes and extensor musculature or Hirabayashi open-door laminoplasty: a case–control study

  • Kentaro Yamane
  • Yoshihisa Sugimoto
  • Masato Tanaka
  • Shinya Arataki
  • Tomoyuki Takigawa
  • Toshifumi Ozaki
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose

The presence of preoperative kyphosis has been identified as a risk factor for laminar closure (LC). We have been performing modified open-door laminoplasty with reattachment of the spinous processes and extensor musculature for patients with reduced cervical lordosis because this procedure can prevent progression of cervical kyphosis. This procedure may also prevent LC. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rate of LC after the modified open-door laminoplasty.

Methods

A total of 104 patients who underwent open-door laminoplasty were retrospectively reviewed. Of these patients, 18 underwent modified open-door laminoplasty (group M), whereas the other 86 underwent Hirabayashi open-door laminoplasty (group H). Group H was divided into two classes according to the preoperative cervical lordosis angle (group H1 ≤ 10° vs. group H2 ≥ 11°). All 18 patients in group M had a preoperative lordosis angle ≤10°. The outcomes were assessed using the rate of LC, the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the erector muscle on magnetic resonance imaging, and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (JOA score).

Results

The rate of laminar closure was significantly lower in group M (39 %) than in group H1 (76 %) (P < 0.01). The CSAs tended to be larger in the muscle preservation side of group M than in the other groups. There was no significant difference in the JOA score among the three groups.

Conclusions

Although patients with decreased cervical lordosis have a higher risk of LC, the results suggested that modified open-door laminoplasty could reduce the rate of LC compared with Hirabayashi open-door laminoplasty.

Keywords

Open-door laminoplasty Modified open-door laminoplasty Laminar closure Cervical myelopathy Cervical kyphosis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Chiba K, Ogawa Y, Ishii K, Takaishi H, Nakamura M, Maruiwa H, Matsumoto M, Toyama Y (2006) Long-term results of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy—average 14-year follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(26):2998–3005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, Maruyama T, Wakano K (1981) Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 6:354–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, Suzuki N, Satomi K, Ishii Y (1983) Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 8:693–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hirabayashi K, Toyama Y, Chiba K (1999) Expansive laminoplasty for myelopathy in ossification of the longitudinal ligament. Clin Orthop Relat Res 359:35–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hirabayashi K, Satomi K (1988) Operative procedure and results of expansive open-door laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13(7):870–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patel CK, Cunningham BJ, Herkowitz HN (2002) Techniques in cervical laminoplasty. Spine J 2(6):450–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Satomi K, Nishu Y, Kohno T, Hirabayashi K (1994) Long-term follow-up studies of open-door expansive laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:507–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Satomi K, Ogawa J, Ishii Y, Hirabayashi K (2001) Short-term complications and long-term results of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine J 1:26–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matsumoto M, Watanabe K, Tsuji T, Ishii K, Takaishi H, Nakamura M, Toyama Y, Chiba K (2008) Risk factors for closure of lamina after open-door laminoplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 9:530–537CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matsumoto M, Watanabe K, Hosogane N, Tsuji T, Ishii K, Nakamura M, Chiba K, Toyama Y (2012) Impact of lamina closure on long-term outcomes of open-door laminoplasty in patients with cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(15):1288–1291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee DH, Park SA, Kim NH, Hwang CJ, Kim YT, Lee CS, Riew KD (2011) Laminar closure after classic Hirabayashi open-door laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(25):E1634–E1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang HQ, Mak KC, Samartzis D, El-Fiky T, Wong YW, Luo ZJ, Kang X, Cheung WY, Luk KD, Cheung KM (2011) “Spring-back” closure associated with open-door cervical laminoplasty. Spine J 11(9):832–838CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hayashi M, Ogino T, Itoh T, Takei H, Hashimoto J, Ohshima Y (1997) The progress of OPLL after cervical laminoplasty—at least 3 years follow-up. Spinal Surg 11(1):61–66 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duetzmann S, Cole T, Ratliff JK (2015) Cervical laminoplasty developments and trends, 2003-2013: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine 23(1):24–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Itoh T, Tsuji H (1985) Technical improvements and results of laminoplasty for compressive myelopathy in the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 10:729–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee JY, Hanks SE, Oxner W, Tannoury C, Donaldson WF 3rd, Kang JD (2007) Use of small suture anchors in cervical laminoplasty to maintain canal expansion: a technical note. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:33–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Brien MF, Peterson D, Casey AT, Crockard HA (1996) A novel technique for laminoplasty augmentation of spinal canal area using titanium miniplate stabilization A computerized morphometric analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:474–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tanaka N, Nakanishi K, Fujimoto Y, Sasaki H, Kamei N, Hamasaki T, Yamada K, Yamamoto R, Nakamae T, Ochi M (2008) Expansive laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy with interconnected porous calcium hydroxyapatite ceramic spacers: comparison with autogenous bone spacers. J Spinal Disord Tech 21(8):547–552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang JM, Roh KJ, Kim DJ, Kim DW (1998) A new method of stabilizing the elevated laminae in open-door laminoplasty using an anchor system. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:1005–1008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Janik TJ, William Jones E, Cailliet R, Normand M (2001) Comparison of axial and flexural stresses in lordosis and three buckled configurations of the cervical spine. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 16(4):276–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kawakami M, Tamaki T, Ando M, Yamada H, Yoshida M (2002) Relationships between sagittal alignment of the cervical spine and morphology of the spinal cord and clinical outcomes in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated with expansive laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech 15(5):391–397CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim SW, Hai DM, Sundaram S, Kim YC, Park MS, Paik SH, Kwak YH, Kim TH (2013) Is cervical lordosis relevant in laminoplasty? Spine J 13(8):914–921CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gu Z, Zhang A, Shen Y, Li F, Sun X, Ding W (2015) Relationship between the laminoplasty opening size and the laminoplasty opening angle, increased sagittal canal diameter and the prediction of spinal canal expansion following open-door cervical laminoplasty. Eur Spine J 24(8):1613–1620CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gu ZF, Zhang AL, Shen Y, Ding WY, Li F, Sun XZ (2015) The relationship between laminoplasty opening angle and increased sagittal canal diameter and the prediction of spinal canal expansion following double-door cervical laminoplasty. Eur Spine J 24(8):1597–1604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kentaro Yamane
    • 1
  • Yoshihisa Sugimoto
    • 1
  • Masato Tanaka
    • 1
  • Shinya Arataki
    • 1
  • Tomoyuki Takigawa
    • 1
  • Toshifumi Ozaki
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryOkayama University Graduate School of MedicineOkayama CityJapan

Personalised recommendations