Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Outcome Evaluation of Modified Uninstrumented Open-door Cervical Laminoplasty for Ossified Posterior Longitudinal Ligament with Cervical Myelopathy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study Design

This was a retrospective study.

Purpose

To evaluate the short term outcomes of a novel self-developed technique of performing uninstrumented open-door cervical laminoplasty (ODCL) in patients with cervical myelopathy secondary to ossified posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL).

Review of Literature

Published literature on cervical laminoplasties largely focuses on the outcomes of instrumented variants.

Materials and Methods

Retrospective data were collected from 54 patients who underwent uninstrumented ODCL for cervical OPLL at a single institution from January 2010 to February 2017. The preoperative and postoperative modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (mJOA) and Nurick grading were documented. Cervical lordotic angle at C2-C7 and range of motion (ROM) were obtained from the preoperative and postoperative lateral cervical radiographs in neutral and flexion extension views, respectively. Descriptive and analytical statistics were generated by SAS 9.4 University Edition (SAS Institute, Cary. North Carolina, USA).

Results

The average age was 58.6 ± 7.8 years. The average time of presentation from the onset of symptoms was 7.6 ± 3 months. Of the 54 patients who were included in the study, majority (48.14%) had segmental type of OPLL while C3–C6 was the most commonly operated level (66.67%). The mean operating time was 115 ± 31 min with a mean blood loss of 165.9 ± 75 ml. There was a significant improvement in the mJOA scores (9.2 ± 1.1-13.7 ± 0.9, P < 0.0001) and Nurick grading (3.4 ± 0.8-1.6 ± 0.5, P < 0.0001) at 24-month followup. Preoperative C2–C7 angle had an average decrease of 4.5° at 24-month followup (19.3 ± 7.2-14.8 ± 8.8, P < 0.0001). There was a mean reduction of 4.3° ± 3.78° noted in the C2–C7 ROM between the preoperative and final followup.

Conclusion

Uninstrumented ODCL is an easily reproducible and economical alternative to the standard instrumented laminoplasty with equivalent short term outcomes. This technique is a valuable option in the treatment of cervical OPLL, especially in regions with scarce resources.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wang MY, Shah S, Green BA. Clinical outcomes following cervical laminoplasty for 204 patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Surg Neurol 2004;62:487–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. An HS, Al-Shihabi L, Kurd M. Surgical treatment for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2014;22:420–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shinomiya K, Okamoto A, Kamikozuru M, Furuya K, Yamaura I. An analysis of failures in primary cervical anterior spinal cord decompression and fusion. J Spinal Disord 1993;6:277–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sodeyama T, Goto S, Mochizuki M, Takahashi J, Moriya H. Effect of decompression enlargement laminoplasty for posterior shifting of the spinal cord. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999;24:1527–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Baisden J, Voo LM, Cusick JF, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N. Evaluation of cervical laminectomy and laminoplasty. A longitudinal study in the goat model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999;24:1283–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fields MJ, Hoshijima K, Feng AH, Richardson WJ, Myers BS. A biomechanical, radiologic, and clinical comparison of outcome after multilevel cervical laminectomy or laminoplasty in the rabbit. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:2925–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Steinmetz MP, Resnick DK. Cervical laminoplasty. Spine J 2006;6:274S–81S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kang SH, Rhim SC, Roh SW, Jeon SR, Baek HC. Postlaminoplasty cervical range of motion: Early results. J Neurosurg Spine 2007;6:386–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim SJ, Song JH, Kim MH, Park HK, Kim SH, Shin KM, et al. The prognostic implications of radiologicalfindings after laminoplasty in cervical myelopathy patients. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 1997;26:961–70.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Benzel EC, Lancon J, Kesterson L, Hadden T. Cervical laminectomy and dentate ligament section for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord 1991;4:286–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Nurick S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 1972;95:87–100.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, Maruyama T, Wakano K. Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1981;6:354–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sakaura H, Hosono N, Mukai Y, Iwasaki M, Yoshikawa H. C3–6 laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy maintains satisfactory long term surgical outcomes. Global Spine J 2014;4:169–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yuan W, Zhu Y Liu X, Zhu H, Zhou X, Zhou R, et al. 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 2015;134:17–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee CH, Jahng TA, Hyun SJ, Kim KJ, Kim HJ. 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? Clinical Spine Surgery 2016;29:E9–E15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kohno K, Kumon Y Oka Y Matsui S, Ohue S, Sakaki S. Evaluation of prognostic factors following expansive laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Surg Neurol 1997;48:237–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hukuda S, Mochizuki T, Ogata M, Shichikawa K, Shimomura Y. Operations for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. A comparison of the results of anterior and posterior procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1985;67:609–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kalb S, Martirosyan NL, Perez-Orribo L, Kalani MY Theodore N. Analysis of demographics, risk factors, clinical presentation, and surgical treatment modalities for the ossified posterior longitudinal ligament. Neurosurg Focus 2011;30:E11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yang L, Gu Y, Shi J, Gao R, Liu Y, Li J, et al. Modified plate-only open-door laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical stenotic myelopathy. Orthopedics 2013;36:e79–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Manzano GR, Casella G, Wang MY, Vanni S, Levi AD. A prospective, randomized trial comparing expansile cervical laminoplasty and cervical laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy. Neurosurgery 2012;70:264–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Heller JG, Edwards CC 2nd, Murakami H, Rodts GE. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: An independent matched cohort analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:1330–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Shaffrey CI, Wiggins GC, Piccirilli CB, Young JN, Lovell LR. Modified open-door laminoplasty for treatment of neurological deficits in younger patients with congenital spinal stenosis: Analysis of clinical and radiographic data. J Neurosurg 1999;90:170–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Matsuzaki H, Hoshino M, Kiuchi T, Toriyama S. Dome-like expansive laminoplasty for the second cervical vertebra. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1989;14:1198–203.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lara-Almunia M, Hernandez-Vicente J. Open door laminoplasty: Creation of A new vertebral arch. Int J Spine Surg 2017;11:6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mizayaki K, Hirohuji E, Ono S. Extensive simultaneous multi-segmental laminectomy and posterior decompression wit posterolateral fusion. J Jpn Spine Res Soc 1994;5:167.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Inoue H, Ohmori K, Ishida Y, Suzuki K, Takatsu T. Long term followup review of suspension laminotomy for cervical compression myelopathy. J Neurosurg 1996;85:817–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wada E, Suzuki S, Kanazawa A, Matsuoka T, Miyamoto S, Yonenobu K. Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: A long term followup study over 10 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:1443–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lao L, Zhong G, Li X, Qian L, Liu Z. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy for multi-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy: A systematic review of the literature. J Orthop Surg Res 2013;8:45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chiba K, Toyama Y, Matsumoto M, Maruiwa H, Watanabe M, Hirabayashi K. Segmental motor paralysis after expansive open-door laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:2108–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Satomi K Ogawa J, Ishii Y, Hirabayashi K. Short-term complications and long term results of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine J 2001;1:26–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Sakaura H, Hosono N, Mukai Y, Ishii T, Yoshikawa H. C5 palsy after decompression surgery for cervical myelopathy: Review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:2447–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yonenobu K, Wada E, Ono K. Laminoplasty. In: Clark CR, editor. The Cervical Spine. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2005. p. 1057–71.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Spine Services, MIOT International, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

    Charanjit Singh Dhillon, Shrikant Rajeshwari Ega, Raviraj Tantry, Narendra Reddy Medagam, Nilay Chhasatia, Chetan Pophale & Anand Khatavi

Authors
  1. Charanjit Singh Dhillon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shrikant Rajeshwari Ega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raviraj Tantry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Narendra Reddy Medagam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nilay Chhasatia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chetan Pophale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Anand Khatavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charanjit Singh Dhillon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dhillon, C.S., Ega, S.R., Tantry, R. et al. Outcome Evaluation of Modified Uninstrumented Open-door Cervical Laminoplasty for Ossified Posterior Longitudinal Ligament with Cervical Myelopathy. JOIO 53, 510–517 (2019). https://doi.org/10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_207_19

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_207_19

Keywords

Search

Navigation