Ossification foci act as stabilizers in continuous-type ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a comparative study between laminectomy and laminoplasty

Abstract

Background

In multilevel ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), laminectomy is an effective surgical technique; however, there is a possibility of kyphotic alignment change after surgery. Nevertheless, in the continuous type of OPLL, the ossification foci are connected and may act as stabilizers preventing alignment change. We here compare the surgical outcome of laminectomy and laminoplasty in continuous-type OPLL of the cervical spine.

Methods

Seventy-three patients who underwent cervical laminectomy or laminoplasty for continuous-type OPLL from 2004 to 2014 were enrolled. The clinical outcomes were assessed by using the neck disability index, visual analogue scale, and Japanese Orthopedic Association scoring systems. Radiological evaluation with plain lateral radiographs was performed to observe alignment changes.

Results

The perioperative clinical outcome with laminectomy did not differ significantly from that of laminoplasty. Kyphotic change was observed in 3 of 35 patients with laminectomy and 3 of 38 patients with laminoplasty. Although loss of lordosis was observed in both groups, the C2–7 Cobb angle, sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and T1 slope did not demonstrate significant statistical differences between laminectomy and laminoplasty. Moreover, the C2–7 SVA in the C7-included laminectomy group (33.9 ± 13.4) became greater than that in the C7-excluded laminectomy group (24.8 ± 11.3) at the final follow-up (p = 0.049).

Conclusions

In continuous-type OPLL, the surgical outcome did not show any significant difference between laminectomy and laminoplasty. Laminectomy alone is also a good choice in continuous-type OPLL, similar to laminoplasty.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Barrey C, Jund J, Noseda O, Roussouly P (2007) Sagittal balance of the pelvis-spine complex and lumbar degenerative diseases. A comparative study about 85 cases. Eur Spine J 16:1459–1467

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Breig A, el-Nadi AF (1966) Biomechanics of the cervical spinal cord. Relief of contact pressure on and overstretching of the spinal cord. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 4:602–624

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Cho WS, Chung CK, Jahng TA, Kim HJ (2008) Post-laminectomy kyphosis in patients with cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: does it cause neurological deterioration? J Korean Neurosurg Soc 43:259–264

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Deutsch H, Haid RW, Rodts GE, Mummaneni PV (2003) Postlaminectomy cervical deformity. Neurosurg Focus 15:E5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Epstein NE (1994) The surgical management of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in 43 north americans. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:664–672

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ferch RD, Shad A, Cadoux-Hudson TA, Teddy PJ (2004) Anterior correction of cervical kyphotic deformity: effects on myelopathy, neck pain, and sagittal alignment. J Neurosurg 100:13–19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F (2005) The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2024–2029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Guigui P, Benoist M, Deburge A (1998) Spinal deformity and instability after multilevel cervical laminectomy for spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:440–447

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    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) 6:354–364

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Hirabayashi K, Satomi K (1988) Operative procedure and results of expansive open-door laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13:870–876

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    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) 8:693–699

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hyun SJ, Riew KD, Rhim SC (2013) Range of motion loss after cervical laminoplasty: a prospective study with minimum 5-year follow-up data. Spine J 13:384–390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Ishida Y, Suzuki K, Ohmori K, Kikata Y, Hattori Y (1989) Critical analysis of extensive cervical laminectomy. Neurosurgery 24:215–222

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ishihara H, Kanamori M, Kawaguchi Y, Nakamura H, Kimura T (2004) Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion. Spine J 4:624–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kaptain GJ, Simmons NE, Replogle RE, Pobereskin L (2000) Incidence and outcome of kyphotic deformity following laminectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg 93:199–204

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Kato Y, Iwasaki M, Fuji T, Yonenobu K, Ochi T (1998) Long-term follow-up results of laminectomy for cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Neurosurg 89:217–223

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kawakami M, Tamaki T, Yoshida M, Hayashi N, Ando M, Yamada H (1999) Axial symptoms and cervical alignments after cervical anterior spinal fusion for patients with cervical myelopathy. J Spinal Disord 12:50–56

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Lee SE, Chung CK, Jahng TA, Kim HJ (2013) Long-term outcome of laminectomy for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Neurosurg Spine 18:465–471

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 20:7–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Matsunaga S, Sakou T, Nakanisi K (1999) Analysis of the cervical spine alignment following laminoplasty and laminectomy. Spinal Cord 37:20–24

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Mikawa Y, Shikata J, Yamamuro T (1987) Spinal deformity and instability after multilevel cervical laminectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 12:6–11

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Nolan JP Jr, Sherk HH (1988) Biomechanical evaluation of the extensor musculature of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13:9-11

  23. 23.

    Ratliff JK, Cooper PR (2003) Cervical laminoplasty: a critical review. J Neurosurg 98:230–238

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Sasso RC, Ruggiero RA Jr, Reilly TM, Hall PV (2003) Early reconstruction failures after multilevel cervical corpectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:140–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Saunders RL, Pikus HJ, Ball P (1998) Four-level cervical corpectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:2455–2461

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Tsukimoto H (1960) A case report-autopsy of syndrome of compression of spinal cord owing to ossification within spinal canal of cervical spines. Arch Jap Chir 29:1003–1007

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Yuan W, Zhu Y, Liu X, Zhu H, Zhou X, Zhou R, Cui C, Li J (2015) Postoperative three-dimensional cervical range of motion and neurological outcomes in patients with cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: cervical laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 134:17–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yong-Eun Cho.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type study, formal consent is not required.

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yoo, S., Ryu, D., Choi, HJ. et al. Ossification foci act as stabilizers in continuous-type ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a comparative study between laminectomy and laminoplasty. Acta Neurochir 159, 1783–1790 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-017-3233-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament
  • Laminectomy
  • Laminoplasty
  • Stabilizer