Advertisement

Posterior approach to the degenerative cervical spine

  • Kazuo Yonenobu
  • Takenori Oda
Conference paper

Abstract

Laminoplasty has been gradually accepted as a treatment for choice for cervical compression myelopathy. The historical perspective of laminoplasty is described. The aims of laminoplasty are to expand the spinal canal, to secure spinal stability, to preserve the protective function of the spine, and to preserve spinal mobility. Laminoplasty is indicated in myelopathic patients with a developmentally narrow spinal canal or multiple-level involvement combined with a relatively narrow canal. Several laminoplasty techniques and supplementary techniques are described, together with expected outcomes and complications of surgery.

Keywords

Laminectomy Laminoplasty Cervical myelopathy History Surgical technique 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bohlman HH (1977) Cervical spondylosis with moderate to severe myelopathy. Spine 2:151–162Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical discs. J Neurosurg 15:602–617PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ebara S, Yonenobu K, Fujiwara K, Yamashita K, Ono K (1988) Myelopathy hand characterized by muscle wasting. A different type of myelopathy hand in patients with cervical spondylosis. Spine 13:785–791PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Graham JJ (1989) Complications of cervical spine surgery. In: Shark HH, et al (eds) The cervical spine, 2nd edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 831–837Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hase H, Watanabe t, Hirasawa Y et al (1991) Bilateral open laminoplasty using ceramic laminas for cervical myelopathy. Spine 16:1269–1276PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herkowitz HN (1988) A comparison of anterior cervical fusion, cervical laminectomy, and cervical laminoplasty for the surgical management of multiple level spondylotic radiculopathy. Spine 3:774–780Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hirabayashi K, Miyagawa 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 6:354–364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, Suzuki N, Satomi K, Ishii Y (1983) Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine 8:693–699PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hirabayashi K (1994) Expansive open door laminoplasty. In: Shark HH, et al (eds) The cervical spine. An atlas of surgical procedures. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 233–250Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoshi K, Kurokawa T, Nakamura K, Hoshino Y, Saita K, Miyoshi K (1996) Expansive cervical laminoplasties — observations on comparative changes in spinous process lengths following longitudinal laminal divisions using autogenous bone or hydroxyapatite spacers. Spinal Cord 34:725–728PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hosono N, Yonenobu K, Ono K (1996) Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty: a noticeable complication. Spine 21:1969–1973CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hukuda S, Mochizuki T, Ogata M, Shichikawa K, Shimomura Y (1985) Operations for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. A comparison of the results of anterior and posterior procedures. J Bone Joint Surg 67-B:609–615Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Itoh T, Tsuji H (1985) Technical improvements and results of laminoplasty for compressive myelopathy in the cervical spine. Spine 10:729–736PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iwasaki M, Ebara S, Miyamoto S, Wada E, Yonenobu K (1996) Expansive laminoplasty for cervical radiculomyelopathy due to soft disc hernia. A comparative study between laminoplasty and anterior arthrodesis. Spine 21:32–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iwasaki M, Kawaguchi Y, Kimura T, Yonenobu K (2002) Long-term results of expansive laminoplasty for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine: more than 10 years follow-up. J Neurosurg (Spine) 96:180–189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kawai S, Sunago K, Doi K, Saika m, Taguchi T (1988) Cervical laminoplasty (Hattori’s method). Procedure and follow-up results. Spine 13:1245–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matsuzaki H, Hoshino M, Kiuchi T, Toriyama S (1989) Dome-like expansive laminoplasty for the second cervical vertebra. Spine 14:1198–1203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mayfield FH (1976) Complications of laminectomy. Clin Neurosurg 23:435–439PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mikawa Y, Shikara J, Yamamuro T (1987) Spinal deformity and instability after multilevel cervical laminectomy. Spine 12:6–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miyazaki K, Kirita Y (1986) Extensive simultaneous multisegment laminectomy for myelopathy due to the ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical lesion. Spine 11:531–542PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miyazaki K, Hirohuji E, Ono S, et al (1994) Extensive simultaneous multisegmental laminectomy and posterior decompression with posterolateral fusion. J Jpn Spine Res Soc 5:167Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nakano K, Harata S, Suetsuna F, Araki T, Itoh J (1992) Spinous process-splitting laminoplasty using hydroxyapatite spinous process spacer. Spine 17:S41–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oyama M, Hattori S, Moriwaki N (1973) A new method of posterior decompression (in Japanese). Chubuseisaisi 16:792–794Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Robinson RA, Smith GW (1955) Anterolateral cervical disc removal and interbody fusion of the cervical spine. Johns Hopkins Med J 96:223–224Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rogers L (1961) The surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Mobilization of the complete cervical cord into an enlarged canal. J Bone Joint Surg 43B:3–6Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    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 28:1258–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tsuzuki N, Zhogshi L, Abe R, Aiki K (1993) Paralysis of the arm after posterior decompression of the cervical spinal cord. 1. Anatomical investigation of the mechanism of paralysis. Eur Spine J 2:191–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tsuzuki N, Abe R, Aiki K, Okai K (1993) Paralysis of the arm after posterior decompression of the cervical spinal cord. 2. Analysis of clinical findings. Eur Spine J 2:197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wada E, Suzuki S, Kanazawa A, Matsuoka T, Miyamoto S, Yonenobu K (2001) Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a long-term follow-up study over 10 years. Spine 26:1443–1447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    White AA, Panjabi MM (1990) The problem of clinical instability in the human spine. Clinical biomechanics of the spine, 2nd edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 302–326Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yasuoka S, Peterson HA, Maccarty CS (1982) Incidence of spinal column deformity after multilevel laminectomy in children and adults. J Neurosurg 57:441PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yonenobu K, Fuji T, Ono K, Okada K, Yamamoto T, Harada N (1985) Choice of surgical treatment for multisegmental cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 10:710–716PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yonenobu K, Okada K, Fuji T, Fujiwara K, Yamashita K, Ono K (1986) Causes of neurological deterioration following surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy. Spine 11:818–823PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yonenobu K, Hosono N, Iwasaki M, Asano M, Ono K (1991) Neurological complications of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy. Spine 16:1277–1281PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yonenobu K, Hosono N, Iwasaki M, Asano M, Ono K (1992) Laminoplasty versus subtotal corpectomy. A comparative study of results in multisegmental cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 17:1281–1284PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yonenobu K, Abumi K, Nagata K, Taketomi E, Ueyama K (2001) Interand intra-observer reliability of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scoring System for evaluation of cervical compression myelopathy. Spine 26:1890–1894CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazuo Yonenobu
    • 1
  • Takenori Oda
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryOsaka-Minami National HospitalOsakaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Rheumatology and OrthopedicsOsaka-Minami National HospitalOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations