Laminoplasty and laminectomy for cervical sponydylotic myelopathy: a systematic review

Abstract

Background

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy is frequently encountered in neurosurgical practice. The posterior surgical approach includes laminectomy and laminoplasty.

Objective

To perform a systematic review evaluating the effectiveness of posterior laminectomy compared with posterior laminoplasty for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Methods

An extensive search of the literature in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane library was performed by an experienced librarian. Risk of bias was assessed by two authors independently. The quality of the studies was graded, and the following outcome measures were retrieved: pre- and postoperative (m)JOA, pre- and postoperative ROM, postoperative VAS neck pain, and Ishira cervical curvature index. If possible data were pooled, otherwise a weighted mean was calculated for each study and a range mentioned.

Results

All studies were of very low quality. Due to inadequate description of the data in most articles, pooling of the data was not possible. Qualitative interpretation of the data learned that there were no clinically important differences, except for the higher rate of procedure-related complications with laminoplasty.

Conclusion

Based on these results, a claim of superiority for laminoplasty or laminectomy was not justified. The higher number of procedure-related complications should be considered when laminoplasty is offered to a patient as a treatment option. A study of robust methodological design is warranted to provide objective data on the clinical effectiveness of both procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Denaro V, Di Martino A (2011) Cervical spine surgery: an historical perspective. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:639–648

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Shiraishi T (2002) Skip laminectomy—a new treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy, preserving bilateral muscular attachments to the spinous processes: a preliminary report. Spine J 2:108–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Tsuji H (1982) Laminoplasty for patients with compressive myelopathy due to so-called spinal canal stenosis in cervical and thoracic regions. Spine 7:28–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Oyama M, Hattori S, Moriwaki N (1973) A new method of posterior decompression [in Japanese]. Centr Jpn J Orthop Traumatol Surg (Chubuseisaisi) 16:792–794

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Hirabayashi K (1978) Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Shujutsu 32:1159–1163

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Kurokawa T, Tsuyama N, Tanaka H (1982) Enlargement of spinal canal by the sagittal splitting of the spinous process. Bessatusu Seikeigeka 2:234–240

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Ishihara A (1968) Roentenographic studies on the normal pattern of the cervical curvature. Nippon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 42:1033–1044 (in Japanese)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M, Editorial Board CBRG (2009) 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine 34:1929–1941

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Meerpohl J, Dahm P, Schunemann HJ (2011) GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 64:383–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Meerpohl J, Norris S, Guyatt GH (2011) GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64:401–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Guyatt GHOA, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, GRADE Working Group (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924–926

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, Maruyama T, Wakano K (1981) Operative results and postoperative progression among patients with ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine 6:354–364

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Chung SS, Lee CS, Chung KH (2002) Factors affecting the surgical results of expansive laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. IntOrthop 26:334–338

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Guigui P, Benoist M, Deburge A (1998) Spinal deformity and instability after multilevel cervical laminectomy for spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 23:440–447

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Hamanishi C, Tanaka S (1996) Bilateral multilevel laminectomy with or without posterolateral fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: relationship to type of onset and time until operation. J Neurosurg 85:447–451

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Han G-W, Liu S-Y, Liang C-X, Yu B-S, Chen B-L, Zhang X-H, Li H-M, Wei F-X (2009) Application of hydroxyapatite artificial bone in bilateral open-door posterior cervical expansive laminoplasty. J Clin Rehabil Tissue Eng Res 13:5661–5664

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Handa Y, Kubota T, Ishii H, Sato K, Tsuchida A, Arai Y (2002) Evaluation of prognostic factors and clinical outcome in elderly patients in whom expansive laminoplasty is performed for cervical myelopathy due to multisegmental spondylotic canal stenosis. A retrospective comparison with younger patients. J Neurosurg 96:173–179

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Hatta Y, Shiraishi T, Hase H, Yato Y, Ueda S, Mikami Y, Harada T, Ikeda T, Kubo T (2005) Is posterior spinal cord shifting by extensive posterior decompression clinically significant for multisegmental cervical spondylotic myelopathy? Spine 30:2414–2419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Highsmith JM, Dhall SS, Haid RW Jr, Rodts GE Jr, Mummaneni PV (2011) Treatment of cervical stenotic myelopathy: a cost and outcome comparison of laminoplasty versus laminectomy and lateral mass fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 14:619–625

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hosono N, Sakaura H, Mukai Y, Fujii R, Yoshikawa H (2006) C3–6 laminoplasty takes over C3–7 laminoplasty with significantly lower incidence of axial neck pain. Eur Spine J 15:1375–1379

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Inoue H, Ohmori K, Ishida Y, Suzuki K, Takatsu T (1996) Long-term follow-up review of suspension laminotomy for cervical compression myelopathy. J Neurosurg 85:817–823

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishihara H, Ohmori K, Nakamura H, Kimura T (2003) Minimum 10-year followup after en bloc cervical laminoplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 411:129–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Liu J, Ebraheim NA, Sanford CG Jr, Patil V, Haman SP, Ren L, Yang H (2007) Preservation of the spinous process-ligament-muscle complex to prevent kyphotic deformity following laminoplasty. Spine J 7:159–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Motosuneya T, Maruyama T, Yamada H, Tsuzuki N, Sakai H (2011) Long-term results of tension-band laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy: a ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:68–72

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Naderi S, Ozgen S, Pamir MN, Ozek MM, Erzen C (1998) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical results and factors affecting prognosis. Neurosurgery 43:43–49

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Naruse T, Yanase M, Takahashi H, Horie Y, Ito M, Imaizumi T, Oguri K, Matsuyama Y (2009) Prediction of clinical results of laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy focusing on spinal cord motion in intraoperative ultrasonography and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 34:2634–2641

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Okada M, Minamide A, Endo T, Yoshida M, Kawakami M, Ando M, Hashizume H, Nakagawa Y, Maio K (2009) A prospective randomized study of clinical outcomes in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy treated with open-door or French-door laminoplasty. Spine 34:1119–1126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Sakai Y, Matsuyama Y, Inoue K, Ishiguro N (2005) Postoperative instability after laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy with spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:1–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Satomi K, Nishu Y, Kohno T, Hirabayashi K (1994) Long-term follow-up studies of open-door expansive laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine 19:507–510

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Suda K, Abumi K, Ito M, Shono Y, Kaneda K, Fujiya M (2003) Local kyphosis reduces surgical outcomes of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 28:1258–1262

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Suzuki A, Misawa H, Simogata M, Tsutsumimoto T, Takaoka K, Nakamura H (2009) Recovery process following cervical laminoplasty in patients with cervical compression myelopathy: prospective cohort study. Spine 34:2874–2879

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Takayama H, Muratsu H, Doita M, Harada T, Kurosaka M, Yoshiya S (2005) Proprioceptive recovery of patients with cervical myelopathy after surgical decompression. Spine 30:1039–1044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Takeuchi T, Shono Y (2007) Importance of preserving the C7 spinous process and attached nuchal ligament in French-door laminoplasty to reduce postoperative axial symptoms. EurSpine J 16:1417–1422

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Tanaka N, Nakanishi K, Fujimoto Y, Sasaki H, Kamei N, Hamasaki T, Yamada K, Yamamoto R, Nakamae T, Ochi M (2009) Clinical results of cervical myelopathy in patients older than 80 years of age: evaluation of spinal function with motor evoked potentials. J Neurosurg Spine 11:421–426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Tsuji T, Asazuma T, Masuoka K, Yasuoka H, Motosuneya T, Sakai T, Nemoto K (2007) Retrospective cohort study between selective and standard C3–7 laminoplasty. Minimum 2-year follow-up study. Eur Spine J 16:2072–2077

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Wan J, Xu T–T, Shen Q-F, Li H-N, Xia Y-P (2011) Influence of hinge position on the effectiveness of open-door expansive laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Chin J Traumatol English Edition 14:36–41

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Yagi M, Ninomiya K, Kihara M, Horiuchi Y (2010) Long-term surgical outcome and risk factors in patients with cervical myelopathy and a change in signal intensity of intramedullary spinal cord on magnetic resonance imaging: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 12:59–65

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Yamazaki T, Yanaka K, Sato H, Uemura K, Tsukada A, Nose T (2003) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical results and factors affecting outcome with special reference to age differences. Neurosurgery 52:122–126

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Yue WM, Tan CT, Tan SB, Tan SK, Tay BK (2000) Results of cervical laminoplasty and a comparison between single and double trap-door techniques. J Spinal Disord 13:329–335

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Yukawa Y, Kato F, Ito K, Horie Y, Hida T, Ito Z, Matsuyama Y (2007) Laminoplasty and skip laminectomy for cervical compressive myelopathy: range of motion, postoperative neck pain, and surgical outcomes in a randomized prospective study. Spine 32:1980–1985

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, Atkins D, Kunz R, Brozek J, Montori V, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Dahm P, Meerpohl J, Vist G, Berliner E, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Murad MH, Schunemann HJ, Group GW (2011) GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64:1311–1316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Wang SJ, Jiang SD, Jiang LS, Dai LY (2011) Axial pain after posterior cervical spine surgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 20:185–194

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald H. M. A. Bartels.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bartels, R.H.M.A., van Tulder, M.W., Moojen, W.A. et al. Laminoplasty and laminectomy for cervical sponydylotic myelopathy: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 24, 160–167 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2771-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cervical spondylotic myelopathy
  • Posterior approach
  • Laminectomy
  • Laminoplasty
  • Systematic review