Abstract
Purpose
The surgical strategy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) accompanying local kyphosis is controversial. The purpose of the present study was to compare and evaluate the outcomes of two types of surgery for CSM accompanying local kyphosis: (1) laminoplasty alone (LP) and (2) posterior reconstruction surgery (PR) in which we corrected the local kyphosis using a pedicle screw or lateral mass screw.
Methods
Sixty patients who presented with local kyphosis exceeding 5° were enrolled. LP and PR were each performed on a group of 30 of these patients; 30 CSM patients without local kyphosis, who had undergone LP, were used as controls. The follow-up period was 2 years or longer. Preoperative local kyphosis angles in LP and PR were 8.3° ± 4.4° and 8.8° ± 5.7°, respectively. Preoperative C2–7 angles in LP, PR and controls were −1.7° ± 9.6°, −0.4° ± 7.2° and −12.0° ± 5.6°, respectively. The recovery rate of the JOA score, local kyphosis angle and C2–7 angle at post-op and follow-up were compared between the groups.
Results
The recovery rate of the JOA score in the LP group (32.6 %) was significantly worse than that in the PR group (44.5 %) and that of controls (53.8 %). Local kyphosis angles in the PR and LP groups at follow-up were 4.0° ± 8.6° and 8.0° ± 6.0°, respectively. However, although the C2–7 angle at follow-up was improved to −11.1° ± 12.7° in PR, and maintained at −11.6° ± 6.2° in controls, it deteriorated to 0.5° ± 12.7° in LP.
Conclusions
The present study is the first to compare the outcomes between LP alone and PR for CSM accompanying local kyphosis. It revealed that PR resulted in a better clinical outcome than did LP alone. This result may be due to reduction of local kyphosis, stabilization of the unstable segment, and/or the maintenance of C2–7 angle until follow-up in the PR group.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Uchida K, Nakajima H, Sato R, Yayama T, Mwaka ES, Kobayashi S, Baba H (2009) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy associated with kyphosis or sagittal sigmoid alignment: outcome after anterior or posterior decompression. J Neurosurg Spine 11(5):521–528
Chiba K, Toyama Y, Watanabe M, Maruiwa H, Matsumoto M, Hirabayashi K (2000) Impact of longitudinal distance of the cervical spine on the results of expansive open-door laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(22):2893–2898
Baba H, Maezawa Y, Furusawa N, Imura S, Tomita K (1995) Flexibility and alignment of the cervical spine after laminoplasty for spondylotic myelopathy. A radiographic study. Int Orthop 19(2):116–121
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 (Phila Pa 1976) 28(12):1258–1262
Edwards CC II, Heller J (2006) Cervical laminoplasty, 5th edn., Rothman-Simeone The SpineSaunders Elsevier, Philadelphia, pp 877–895
Heller JG, Silcox DH 3rd, Sutterlin CE 3rd (1995) Complications of posterior cervical plating. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20(22):2442–2448 Review
Abumi K, Kaneda K (1997) Pedicle screw fixation for nontraumatic lesions of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22(16):1853–1863
Abumi K, Shono Y, Taneichi H, Ito M, Kaneda K (1999) Correction of cervical kyphosis using pedicle screw fixation systems. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24(22):2389–2396
Deen HG, Birch BD, Wharen RE, Reimer R (2003) Lateral mass screw-rod fixation of the cervical spine: a prospective clinical series with 1-year follow-up. Spine J 3(6):489–495
Miyamoto H, Uno K (2009) Cervical pedicle screw insertion using a computed tomography cutout technique. J Neurosurg Spine 11:681–687
Richman JD, Daniel TE, Anderson DD, Miller PL, Douglas RA (1995) Biomechanical evaluation of cervical spine stabilization methods using a porcine model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20(20):2192–2197
Singh K, Vaccaro AR, Kim J, Lorenz EP, Lim TH, An HS (2003) Biomechanical comparison of cervical spine reconstructive techniques after a multilevel corpectomy of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(20):2352–2358
Shimizu K, Nakamura M, Nishikawa Y, Hijikata S, Chiba K, Toyama Y (2005) Spinal kyphosis causes demyelination and neuronal loss in the spinal cord: a new model of kyphotic deformity using juvenile Japanese small game fowls. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(21):2388–2392
Tomita K, Kawahara N, Toribatake Y, Heller JG (1998) Expansive midline T-saw laminoplasty (modified spinous process-splitting) for the management of cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23(1):32–37
Edwards CC 2nd, Heller JG, Silcox DH 3rd (2000) T-Saw laminoplasty for the management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: clinical and radiographic outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(14):1788–1794
Kasai Y, Uchida A (2001) New evaluation method using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 121(9):508–510
Fujiyoshi T, Yamazaki M, Kawabe J, Endo T, Furuya T, Koda M, Okawa A, Takahashi K, Konishi H (2008) A new concept for making decisions regarding the surgical approach for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: the K-line. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(26):E990–E993
Yagi M, Ninomiya K, Kihara M, Horiuchi Y (2010) Long-term surgical outcome and risk factors in patients with cervical myelopathy and a change in signal intensity of intramedullary spinal cord on Magnetic Resonance imaging. J Neurosurg Spine 12(1):59–65
Morio Y, Yamamoto K, Teshima R, Nagashima H, Hagino H (2000) Clinicoradiologic study of cervical laminoplasty with posterolateral fusion or bone graft. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(2):190–196
Conflict of interest
None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miyamoto, H., Maeno, K., Uno, K. et al. Outcomes of surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy accompanying local kyphosis (comparison between laminoplasty alone and posterior reconstruction surgery using the screw-rod system). Eur Spine J 23, 341–346 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2923-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2923-1