European Spine Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 104–112 | Cite as

Impact of the surgical treatment for degenerative cervical myelopathy on the preoperative cervical sagittal balance: a review of prospective comparative cohort between anterior decompression with fusion and laminoplasty

  • Kenichiro SakaiEmail author
  • Toshitaka Yoshii
  • Takashi Hirai
  • Yoshiyasu Arai
  • Kenichi Shinomiya
  • Atsushi Okawa
Original Article



Cervical sagittal balance has received increased attention as an important determinant of radiological and clinical outcomes. However, no prospective studies have compared the impact of cervical sagittal balance between anterior and posterior surgeries. We previously conducted a prospective study comparing anterior decompression with fusion (ADF) and laminoplasty (LAMP) for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and reported; however, analysis of cervical alignment within the concept of sagittal balance has yet to be performed, because that concept has recently been proposed. This study aimed to review this prospective cohort, specifically focusing on cervical sagittal balance.


We prospectively performed ADF or LAMP for DCM patients based on the year of enrollment: ADF was performed in odd-numbered years and LAMP in even-numbered years. Cervical lateral X-ray images taken in the neutral standing position were evaluated preoperatively and at a 1-year follow-up. The radiographic measurements included the following: (1) CL (cervical lordosis: C2–7 lordotic angle), (2) CGH (center of gravity of the head)-C7 SVA (sagittal vertical axis), and (3) C7 slope. The clinical results were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopedic Association scoring system for cervical myelopathy (C-JOA score).


We analyzed the data for 66 patients (ADF n = 28, LAMP n = 38). While the CL and CGH-C7 SVA in the ADF were unchanged after the operation, those in the LAMP group worsened, especially in patients with preoperative cervical sagittal imbalance. The C7 slopes were not affected by the operation in either group. The postoperative decreases in the CL in the LAMP group correlated with the preoperative CGH-C7 SVA (r = 0.618, P < 0.01), but those in ADF group did not. In patients with preoperative cervical sagittal imbalance (CGH-C7 SVA ≥40 mm), the recovery rate of the C-JOA score in the ADF group was superior to that in the LAMP group (67.3 vs. 39.8 %). In contrast, for patients without cervical sagittal imbalance, the recovery rate of the C-JOA score showed no significant difference between the ADF and LAMP groups (64.5 vs. 58.7 %).


Postoperative cervical sagittal alignment and balance were maintained after ADF but deteriorated following LAMP, especially in patients with preoperative CGH-C7 SVA ≥40 mm. In these patients, neurological recovery after LAMP was unsatisfactory. LAMP is not suitable for degenerative cervical myelopathy patients with preoperative cervical sagittal imbalance.


Cervical sagittal balance Cervical spondylotic myelopathy Degenerative cervical myelopathy Anterior decompression with fusion Laminoplasty 



We gratefully acknowledge Dr. Satoru Egawa to help our work. This work was supported by Japanese Health Labour Sciences Research Grant.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Ames CP, Blondel B, Scheer JK et al (2013) Cervical radiographical alignment: comprehensive assessment techniques and potential importance in cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(22 Suppl 1):S149–S160. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f449 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baba H, Uchida K, Maezawa Y et al (1996) Lordotic alignment and posterior migration of the spinal cord following en bloc open-door laminoplasty forcervical myelopathy: a magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurol 85:626–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen Y, Yang L, Liu Y et al (2014) Surgical results and prognostic factors of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. PLoS One 9(7):e102008. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102008 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diebo BG, Challier V, Henry JK et al (2016) Predicting cervical alignment required to maintain horizontal gaze based on global spinal alignment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fehling MG, Ibrahim A, Tetreault L et al (2015) A global perspective on the outcomes of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: result from the prospective multicenter AOSpine international study on 479 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40(17):1322–1328. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000988 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, Maruyama T, Wakano K (1981) Operative results and postoperative progression among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 6:354–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hirai T, Okawa A, Arai Y et al (2011) Middle-term results of a prospective comparative study of anterior decompression with fusion and posterior decompression with laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(23):1940–1947. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181feeeb2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jalai CM, Passias PG, Lafage V et al (2016) A comparative analysis of the prevalence and characteristics of cervical malalignment in adults presenting with thoracolumbar spine deformity based on variations in treatment approach over 2 years. Eur Spine J [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jiang L, Tan M, Dong L et al (2015) Comparison of anterior decompression and fusion with posterior laminoplasty for multilevel cervical compressive myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Spinal Disord Tech 28(8):282–290. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000317 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishihara H et al (2013) Minimum 10-year followup after en bloc cervical laminoplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 411:129–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim JH, Park JY, Yi S et al (2015) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion alters whole-spine sagittal alignment. Yonsei Med J 56(4):1060–1070. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2015.56.4.1060 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kimura I, Shingu H, Nasu Y (1995) Long term follow-up of cervical spndylotic myelopathy treated by canal-expansive laminoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77(6):956–961PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee CH, Jahng TA, Hyun SJ, Kim KJ, Kim HJ (2016) Expansive laminoplasty versus laminectomy alone versus laminectomy and fusion for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: is there a difference in the clinical outcome and sagittal alignment? Clin Spine Surg 29(19):E9–E15. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000058 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lin S, Zhou F, Sun Y et al (2014) Changes of sagittal balance of cervical spine after open-door expansive laminoplasty. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 94(35):2726–2730PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin S, Zhou F, Sun Y et al (2015) The severity of operative invasion to the posterior muscular-ligament complex influences cervicalsagittal balance after open-door laminoplasty. Eur Spine J 24(1):127–135. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3605-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu X, Min S, Zhang H et al (2014) Anterior corpectomy versus posterior laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 23(2):362–372. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-3043-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matsunaga S, Sakou T, Nakanisi K (1999) Analysis of the cervical spine alignment following laminoplasty and laminectomy. Spinal Cord 37(1):20–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miyamoto H, Maeno K, Uno K et al (2014) Outcomes of surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy accompanying local kyphosis (comparison between laminoplasty alone and posterior reconstruction surgery using the screw-rod system). Eur Spine J 23(2):341–346. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2923-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oe S, Togawa D, Nakai K et al (2015) The influence of age and sex on cervical spinal alignment among volunteers aged over 50. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40(19):1487–1494. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oshima Y, Takeshita K, Taniguchi Y et al (2016) Effect of preoperative sagittal balance on cervical laminoplasty outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Khayatzadeh S et al (2015) Posture consequences of cervical sagittal imbalance: a novel laboratory model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40(11):783–792. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000877 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Protopsaltis TS, Scheer JK, Terran JS et al (2015) How the neck affects the back: changes in regional cervical sagittal alignment correlate to HRQOL improvement in adult thoracolumbar deformity patients at 2-year follow-up. J Nuerosurg Spine 23(2):153–158. doi: 10.3171/2014.11.SPINE1441 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Qian L, Shao J, Liu Z et al (2014) Comparison of the safety and efficacy of anterior ‘skip’ corpectomy versus posterior decompression in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Orthop Surg Res 9:63. doi: 10.1186/s13018-014-0063-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ratliff JK, Cooper PR (2003) Cervical laminoplasty: a critical review. J Neurosug 98(3 Suppl):230–238Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roselli R, Pompucci A, Formica F et al (2000) Open-door laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy: surgical technique and neurophysiological monitoring. J Neurosurg 92(1 Suppl):38–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sakai K, Okawa A, Takahashi M et al (2012) Five-year follow-up of surgical treatment caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a prospective comparative study of anterior decompression and fusion with floating method versus laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(5):367–376. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31821f4a51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sakai K, Yoshii T, Hirai T et al (2016) Cervical sagittal imbalance is a predictor of kyphotic deformity after laminoplasty in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients without preoperative kyphotic alignment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(4):299–305. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shamji MF, Mohanty C, Massicotte EM, Fehlings MG (2016) The association of cervical spine alignment with neurologic recovery in a prospective cohort of patients with surgical myelopathy: analysis of a series of 124 cases. World Neurosurg 86:112–119. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.09.044 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shiraishi T, Fukuda K, Yato Y, Nakamura M, Ikegami T (2003) Results of skip laminectomy-minimum 2-year follow-up study compared with open-door laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(24):2667–2672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shiraishi T, Kato M, Yato Y et al (2012) New techniques for exposure of posterior cervical spine through intermuscular planes and their surgical application. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(5):E286–E296. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318239cc7e CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sodeyama T, Goto S, Mochizuki M, Takahashi J, Moriya H (1999) Effect of decompression enlargement laminoplasty for posterior shifting of the spinal cord. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24(15):1527–1531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Suda K, Abumi K, Ito M et al (2003) Local kyphosis reduces surgical outcomes of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(12):1258–1262Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Suk KS, Kim KT, Lee JH et al (2007) Sagittal alignment of the cervical spine after the laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976 32(23):E656–E660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tang JA, Scheer JK, Smith JS et al (2012) The impact of standing regional cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes in posterior cervical fusion surgery. Neurosurgery 71(3):662–669. doi: 10.1227/01.neu.0000462074.66077.2b CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Traynelis VC, Arnold PM, Fourney DR et al (2013) Alternative procedures for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: arthroplasty, oblique corpectomy, skip laminectomy: evaluation of comparative effectiveness and safety. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(22 Suppl 1):S210–S231. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgerySaiseikai Kawaguchi General HospitalKawaguchiJapan
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryTokyo Medical and Dental UniversityTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryYokohama City Minato Red Cross HospitalYokohamaJapan

Personalised recommendations