Skip to main content
Log in

Laminoplasty versus skip laminectomy for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Laminoplasty and skip laminectomy are two specific posterior surgical approaches for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review comparing the clinical results and complications of laminoplasty and skip laminectomy in the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Materials and methods

We reviewed and analyzed papers published from January 1969 to December 2012 through the Mediline, Embase, Cochrane review library, and other databases regarding the comparison between laminoplasty and skip laminectomy for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Results

One randomized controlled trial and three non-randomized controlled trials were included in this systematic review. In three studies, the preoperative and postoperative JOA score was similar in both laminoplasty and skip laminectomy groups. In addition, for recovery rate, there was no significant difference between the groups. One study reported that, regarding SF12 scores, there was no significant difference in physical health and mental health after surgery. However, regarding cervical pain, the skip laminectomy group was better than the laminoplasty group significantly. No difference was presented in postoperative ROM and the cervical lordosis between the groups. But the ROM % (post/pre) was reported to be significantly better in the skip laminectomy group in three studies. Less blood loss and shorter operation time were observed in skip laminectomy rather than laminoplasty.

Conclusions

Based on the results above, the skip laminectomy group presented better outcomes in a variety of aspects: ROM % (post/pre), complication rate, surgical trauma, etc. However, as limited study samples were included in the paper, a claim of superiority of the two approaches could not be justified. Further studies are required on the comparison between laminoplasty and skip laminectomy.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tracy JA, Bartleson JD (2010) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurologist 16(3):176–187. doi:10.1097/NRL.0b013e3181da3a29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yalamanchili PK, Vives MJ, Chaudhary SB (2012) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: factors in choosing the surgical approach. Adv Orthop 2012:783762. doi:10.1155/2012/783762

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bayerl S, Wiendieck K, Koeppen D, Topalovic M, Ubelacker A, Kroppenstedt S, Cabraja M (2013) Single- and multi-level anterior decompression and fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a long term follow-up with a minimum of 5 years. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2013.05.031

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Song KJ, Lee KB, Song JH (2012) Efficacy of multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus corpectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a minimum 5-year follow-up study. Eur Spine J 21(8):1551–1557. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2296-x

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jiang SD, Jiang LS, Dai LY (2012) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylosis: a systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132(2):155–161. doi:10.1007/s00402-011-1402-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mitsunaga LK, Klineberg EO, Gupta MC (2012) Laminoplasty techniques for the treatment of multilevel cervical stenosis. Adv Orthop 2012:307916. doi:10.1155/2012/307916

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Woods BI, Hohl J, Lee J, Donaldson W 3rd, Kang J (2011) Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(3):688–695. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1653-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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(2):108–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP (2007) How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 455:23–29. doi:10.1097/BLO.0b013e31802c9098

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M (2009) 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(18):1929–1941. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b1c99f

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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(4):383–394. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Otani K, Sato K, Yabuki S, Iwabuchi M, Kikuchi S (2009) A segmental partial laminectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: anatomical basis and clinical outcome in comparison with expansive open-door laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(3):268–273. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318195b27a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sivaraman A, Bhadra AK, Altaf F, Singh A, Rai A, Casey AT, Crawford RJ (2010) Skip laminectomy and laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective study of clinical and radiologic outcomes. J Spinal Disord Tech 23(2):96–100. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e318198c92a

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 32(18):1980–1985. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318133fbce

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shiraishi T, Fukuda K, Yato Y, Nakamura M, Ikegami T (2003) Results of skip laminectomy-minimum 2-year follow-up study compared with open-door laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(24):2667–2672. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000103340.78418.B2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhu B, Xu Y, Liu X, Liu Z, Dang G (2013) Anterior approach versus posterior approach for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 22(7):1583–1593. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2817-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cunningham MR, Hershman S, Bendo J (2010) Systematic review of cohort studies comparing surgical treatments for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(5):537–543. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b204cc

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mayer M, Meier O, Auffarth A, Koller H (2013) Cervical laminectomy and instrumented lateral mass fusion: techniques, pearls and pitfalls. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2838-x

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yue Zhu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yuan, W., Zhu, Y., Liu, X. et al. Laminoplasty versus skip laminectomy for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134, 1–7 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1881-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1881-8

Keywords

Navigation