Advertisement

Cervical Laminoplasty

  • Lionel N. Metz
  • Grigoriy Arutyunyan
  • Deeptee Jain
  • Lee A. Tan
  • K. Daniel RiewEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Cervical laminoplasty is an effective and well-established motion preserving treatment for cervical myelopathy and myeloradiculopathy. Many different laminoplasty methods have been developed over the last 35 years since the original technique, including open-door laminoplasty, French-door laminoplasty, dome-shaped laminoplasty, and many other variations. Meticulous dissection, hemostasis, and closure are keys to minimizing muscle destruction, pain, and optimizing clinical results after the procedure. Foraminotomy is an adjuct that allows laminoplasty to be used effectively in the setting of symptomatic foraminal stenosis.

Keywords

Cervical laminoplasty Open-door laminoplasty French-door laminoplasty Dome-shaped laminoplasty Stabilization and fixation techniques 

References

  1. 1.
    Tsuji H. Laminoplasty for patients with compressive myelopathy due to so-called spinal canal stenosis in cervical and thoracic regions. Spine. 1982;7(1):28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hase H, Watanabe T, Hirasawa Y, et al. Bilateral open laminoplasty using ceramic laminas for cervical myelopathy. Spine. 1991;16(11):1269–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    O’brien MF, Peterson D, Casey AT, Crockard HA. A novel technique for laminoplasty augmentation of spinal canal area using titanium miniplate stabilization: a computerized morphometric analysis. Spine. 1996;21(4):474–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tsuzuki N, Abe R, Saiki K, Iizuka T. Tension-band laminoplasty of the cervical spine. Int Orthop. 1996;20(5):275–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, Suzuki N, Satomi K, Ishii Y. Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine. 1983;8(7):693–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Suda K, Abumi K, Ito M, Shono Y, Kaneda K, Fujiya M. Local kyphosis reduces surgical outcomes of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2003;28(12):1258–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fujiyoshi T, Yamazaki M, Kawabe J, et al. A new concept for making decisions regarding the surgical approach for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: the K-line. Spine. 2008;33(26):E990–E3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taniyama T, Hirai T, Yamada T, et al. Modified K-line in magnetic resonance imaging predicts insufficient decompression of cervical laminoplasty. Spine. 2013;38(6):496–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taniyama T, Hirai T, Yoshii T, et al. Modified K-line in magnetic resonance imaging predicts clinical outcome in patients with nonlordotic alignment after laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2014;39(21):E1261–E8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang JT, Li JQ, Niu RJ, Liu Z, Tong T, Shen Y. Predictors of cervical lordosis loss after laminoplasty in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(4):1205–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mesfin A, Park M-S, Piyaskulkaew C, et al. Neck pain following laminoplasty. Global Spine J. 2015;5(01):017–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nowinski GP, Visarius H, Nolte LP, Herkowitz HN. A biomechanical comparison of cervical laminaplasty and cervical laminectomy with progressive facetectomy. Spine. 1993;18(14):1995–2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lau D, Winkler EA, Than KD, Chou D, Mummaneni PV. 169 laminoplasty vs laminectomy with posterior spinal fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: matched cohorts of regional sagittal balance. Neurosurgery. 2016;63:167–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hosono N, Yonenobu K, Ono K. Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty: a noticeable complication. Spine. 1996;21(17):1969–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yoshida M, Tamaki T, Kawakami M, et al. Does reconstruction of posterior ligamentous complex with extensor musculature decrease axial symptoms after cervical laminoplasty? Spine. 2002;27(13):1414–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shigematsu H. Degenerative spondylolisthesis does not influence surgical results of laminoplasty in elderly cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(5):720–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shiraishi T, Fukuda K, Yato Y, Nakamura M, Ikegami T. Results of skip laminectomy—minimum 2-year follow-up study compared with open-door laminoplasty. Spine. 2003;28(24):2667–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hyun S-J, Riew KD, Rhim S-C. Range of motion loss after cervical laminoplasty: a prospective study with minimum 5-year follow-up data. Spine J. 2013;13(4):384–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cho SK, Yi J-S, Park MS, et al. Hemostatic techniques reduce hospital stay following multilevel posterior cervical spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(21):1952–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lionel N. Metz
    • 1
  • Grigoriy Arutyunyan
    • 1
  • Deeptee Jain
    • 1
  • Lee A. Tan
    • 2
  • K. Daniel Riew
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryUCSF Medical CenterSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.The Spine HospitalColumbia University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations