Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of spondylotic cervical myelopathy: short-term follow-up
- 936 Downloads
Laminoplasty and laminectomy with fusion are two common procedures for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Controversy remains regarding the superior surgical treatment.
To compare short-term follow-up of laminoplasty to laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
Retrospective review comparing all patients undergoing surgical treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy by a single surgeon.
All patients undergoing laminoplasty or laminectomy with fusion by a single surgeon over a 5-year period (2007–2011).
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).
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsLaminectomy Laminectomy and fusion Laminoplasty Fusion Cervical myelopathy
Financial and material support
No authors received financial support for any of the work reported herein.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.
- 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Lonstein JE (1977) Post-laminectomy kyphosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 128:93–100Google 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) CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther 14:409–415Google 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Team RDC (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle 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
- 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) CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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 PubMedGoogle Scholar