Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 1375–1387 | Cite as

Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion versus posterior laminoplasty for the treatment of oppressive myelopathy owing to cervical ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament: a meta-analysis

  • Rongqing Qin
  • Xiaoqing Chen
  • Pin Zhou
  • Ming Li
  • Jie Hao
  • Feng ZhangEmail author
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this research is to compare the clinical efficacy, postoperative complication and surgical trauma between anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion versus posterior laminoplasty for the treatment of oppressive myelopathy owing to cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL).

Study design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

An comprehensive search of literature was implemented in three electronic databases (Embase, Pubmed, and the Cochrane library). Randomized or non-randomized controlled studies published since January 1990 to July 2017 that compared anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) versus posterior laminoplasty (LAMP) for the treatment of cervical oppressive myelopathy owing to OPLL were acquired. Exclusion criteria were non-human studies, non-controlled studies, combined anterior and posterior operative approach, the other anterior or posterior approaches involving cervical discectomy and fusion and laminectomy with (or without) instrumented fusion, revision surgeries, and cervical myelopathy caused by cervical spondylotic myelopathy. The quality of the included articles was evaluated according to GRADE. The main outcome measures included: preoperative and postoperative Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score; neuro-functional recovery rate; complication rate; reoperation rate; preoperative and postoperative C2–C7 Cobb angle; operation time and intraoperative blood loss; and subgroup analysis was performed according to the mean preoperative canal occupying ratio (Subgroup A:the mean preoperative canal occupying ratio < 60%, and Subgroup B:the mean preoperative canal occupying ratio ≥ 60%).

Results

A total of 10 studies containing 735 patients were included in this meta-analysis. And all of the selected studies were non-randomized controlled trials with relatively low quality as assessed by GRADE. The results revealed that there was no obvious statistical difference in preoperative JOA score between the ACCF and LAMP groups in both subgroups. Also, in subgroup A (the mean preoperative canal occupying ratio < 60%), no obvious statistical difference was observed in the postoperative JOA score and neurofunctional recovery rate between the ACCF and LAMP groups. But, in subgroup B (the mean preoperative canal occupying ratio ≥ 60%), the ACCF group illustrated obviously higher postoperative JOA score and neurofunctional recovery rate than the LAMP group (P < 0.01, WMD 1.89 [1.50, 2.28] and P < 0.01, WMD 24.40 [20.10, 28.70], respectively). Moreover, the incidence of both complication and reoperation was markedly higher in the ACCF group compared with LAMP group (P < 0.05, OR 1.76 [1.05, 2.97] and P < 0.05, OR 4.63 [1.86, 11.52], respectively). In addition, the preoperative cervical C2–C7 Cobb angle was obviously larger in the LAMP group compared with ACCF group (P < 0.05, WMD − 5.77 [− 9.70, − 1.84]). But no statistically obvious difference was detected in the postoperative cervical C2–C7 Cobb angle between the two groups. Furthermore, the ACCF group showed significantly more operation time as well as blood loss compared with LAMP group (P < 0.01, WMD 111.43 [40.32,182.54], and P < 0.01, WMD 111.32 [61.22, 161.42], respectively).

Conclusion

In summary, when the preoperative canal occupying ratio < 60%, no palpable difference was tested in postoperative JOA score and neurofunctional recovery rate. But, when the preoperative canal occupying ratio ≥ 60% ACCF was associated with better postoperative JOA score and the recovery rate of neurological function compared with LAMP. Synchronously, ACCF in the cure for cervical myelopathy owing to OPLL led to more surgical trauma and more incidence of complication and reoperation. On the other hand, LAMP had gone a diminished postoperative C2–C7 Cobb angle, that might be a cause of relatively higher incidence of postoperative late neurofunctional deterioration. In brief, when the preoperative canal occupying ratio < 60%, LAMP seems to be effective and safe. However, when the preoperative canal occupying ratio ≥ 60%, we prefer to choose ACCF while complications could be controlled by careful manipulation and advanced surgical techniques. No matter which option you choose, benefits and risks ought to be balanced.

Keywords

Cervical myelopathy Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion Laminoplasty Meta-analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kalb S, Martirosyan NL, Perez-Orribo L, Kalani MY, Theodore N (2011) Analysis of demographics, risk factors, clinical presentation, and surgical treatment modalities for the ossified posterior longitudinal ligament. Neurosurg Focus 30:E11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stapleton CJ, Pham MH, Attenello FJ, Hsieh PC (2011) Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: genetics and pathophysiology. Neurosurg Focus 30:E6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Epstein N (2002) Diagnosis and surgical management of cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine J 2:436–449CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Iwasaki M, Okuda S, Miyauchi A, Sakaura H, Mukai Y, Yonenobu K, Yoshikawa H, Iwasaki M, Okuda S, Miyauchi A et al (2007) Surgical strategy for cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: part 2: advantages of anterior decompression and fusion over laminoplasty. Spine 32:654–660CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tsuji H (1982) Laminoplasty for patients with oppressive myelopathy due to so-called spinal canal stenosis in cervical and thoracic regions. Spine 7:28–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yamazaki A, Homma T, Uchiyama S, Katsumi Y, Okumura H (1999) Morphologic limitations of posterior decompression by midsagittal splitting method for myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. Spine 24:32–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ogawa Y, Chiba KM, Nakamura M, Takaishi H, Hirabayashi H, Hirabayashi K, Nishiwaki Y, Toyama Y (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 Spine 3:198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sakai K, Okawa A, Takahashi M, Arai Y, Kawabata S, Enomoto M, Kato T, Hirai T, Shinomiya K (2012) Five-year follow-up evaluation of surgical treatment for cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a prospective comparative study of anterior decompression and fusion with floating method versus laminoplasty. Spine 37:367–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cho CB, Chough CK, Oh JY, Park HK, Lee KJ, Rha HK (2010) Axial neck pain after cervical laminoplasty. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 47:107–111CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaneyama S, Sumi M, Kanatani T, Kasahara K, Kanemura A, Takabatake M, Nakatani T, Yano T (2010) Prospective study and multivariate analysis of the incidence of C5 palsy after cervical laminoplasty. Spine 35:E1553CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim B, Yoon DH, Shin HC, Kim KN, Yi S, Shin DA, Ha Y (2015) Surgical outcome and prognostic factors of anterior decompression and fusion for cervical oppressive myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine J 15:875–884CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu H, Li Y, Chen Y, Wu W, Zou D (2013) Cervical curvature, spinal cord MRIT2 signal, and occupying ratio impact surgical approach selection in patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Eur Spine J 22:1480–1488CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee SH, Ahn Y, Lee JH (2008) Laser-assisted anterior cervical corpectomy versus posterior laminoplasty for cervical myelopathic patients with multilevel ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Photomed Laser Surg 26:119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fujimori T, Iwasaki M, Okuda S, Takenaka S, Kashii M, Kaito T, Yoshikawa H (2014) Long-term results of cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament with an occupying ratio of 60% or more. SPINE 39:58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tani T, Ushida T, Ishida K, Iai H, Noguchi T, Yamamoto H (2002) Relative safety of anterior microsurgical decompression versus laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy with a massive ossified posterior longitudinal ligament. SPINE 27:2491–2498CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen Y, Guo Y, Lu X, Chen D, Song D, Shi J, Yuan W (2011) Surgical strategy for multilevel severe ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen Y, Liu X, Chen D, Wang X, Yuan W (2012) Surgical strategy for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. Orthopedics 35:e1231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Masaki Y, Yamazaki M, Okawa A, Aramomi M, Hashimoto M, Koda M, Mochizuki M, Moriya H (2007) An analysis of factors causing poor surgical outcome in patients with cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: anterior decompression with spinal fusion versus laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:7–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Vist GE, Falckytter Y, Meerpohl J, Norris S (2011) GRADE guidelines: rating the quality of evidence-introduction. ​J Clin Epidemiol 64:401–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Feng F, Ruan W, Liu Z, Li Y, Lin C (2016) Anterior versus posterior approach for the treatment of cervical compressive myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 27:26–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang S, Xiang Y, Xia W, Hao L, Yong H, Hua Z, Xin P (2017) Anterior corpectomy comparing to posterior decompression surgery for the treatment of multi-level ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament: a meta-analysis. Int J Surg 40:91–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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 6:354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mazur M, Jost GF, Schmidt MH, Bisson EF (2011) Management of cerebrospinal fluid leaks after anterior decompression for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus 30:E13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Matsuoka T, Yamaura I, Kurosa Y, Nakai O, Shindo S, Shinomiya K (2001) Long-term results of the anterior floating method for cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. SPINE 26:241–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yamaura I, Kurosa Y, Matuoka T, Shindo S (1999) Anterior floating method for cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Clin Orthop Relat Res 359:27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hida K, Iwasaki Y, Koyanagi I, Abe H (2006) Bone window computed tomography for detection of dural defect associated with cervical ossified posterior longitudinal ligament. Neurol Med-Chir 37:173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Derenda M, Kowalina I (2006) Cervical laminoplasty review of surgical techniques, indications, methods of efficacy evaluation, and complications. Neurol Neurochir Pol 40:422–432PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    An HS, Alshihabi L, Kurd M (2014) Surgical treatment for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 22(7):420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu X, Wang H, Zhou Z, Jin A (2014) Anterior decompression and fusion versus posterior laminoplasty for multilevel cervical compressive myelopathy. Orthopedics 37(2):e117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fujiyoshi T, Yamazaki M, Kawabe J, Endo T, Furuya T, Koda M, Okawa A, Takahashi K, Konishi H (2008) A new concept for making decisions regarding the surgical approach for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: the K-line. SPINE 33:990–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishiara H, Nobukiyo M, Seki S, Kimura T (2003) Preventive measures for axial symptoms following cervical laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nishida N, Kanchiku T, Kato Y, Imajo Y, Yoshida Y, Kawano S, Taguchi T (2014) Biomechanical analysis of cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: effects of posterior decompression and kyphosis following decompression. Exp Ther Med 7:1095–1099CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chen Y, Guo Y, Lu X, Chen D, Song D, Shi J, Yuan W (2011) Surgical strategy for multilevel severe ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Liu X, Chen Y, Yang H, Li T, Xu B, Chen D (2017) Expansive open-door laminoplasty versus laminectomy and instrumented fusion for cases with cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament and straight lordosis. Eur Spine J 26:1–8Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sakaura H, Hosono N, Mukai Y, Iwasaki M, Yoshikawa H (2011) Medium-term outcomes of C3–6 laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy: a prospective study with a minimum 5-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 20:928CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tanno M, Furukawa KI, Ueyama K, Harata S, Motomura S (2003) Uniaxial cyclic stretch induces osteogenic differentiation and synthesis of bone morphogenetic proteins of spinal ligament cells derived from patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligaments. Bone 33(4):475–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Katsumi K, Izumi T, Ito T, Hirano T, Watanabe K, Ohashi M (2016) Posterior instrumented fusion suppresses the progression of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a comparison of laminoplasty with and without instrumented fusion by three-dimensional analysis. Eur Spine J 25(5):1634CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fargen KM, Cox JB, Hoh DJ (2012) Does ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament progress after laminoplasty? radiographic and clinical evidence of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament lesion growth and the risk factors for late neurologic deterioration. J Neurosurg Spine 17(6):512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical College of Nantong UniversityNantongChina
  2. 2.Department of OrthopedicsAffiliated Hospital of Nantong UniversityNantongChina
  3. 3.Jiangsu Clinical Medicine Center of Tissue Engineering and Nerve Injury RepairNantongChina
  4. 4.Department of OrthopedicsGaoyou Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western MedicineGaoyouChina

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options