Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The severity of operative invasion to the posterior muscular-ligament complex influences cervical sagittal balance after open-door laminoplasty

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate how the severity of operative invasion to the posterior muscular-ligament complex impacts postoperative cervical sagittal balance.

Materials and methods

Ninety cases of open-door expansive laminoplasty due to cervical spondylotic myelopathy were reviewed. Fifty-three patients underwent laminoplasty with unilateral preservation of the muscular-ligament complex (unilateral elevation group). Thirty-seven patients underwent traditional open-door laminoplasty (bilateral elevation group). Preoperative and postoperative cervical sagittal parameters, including C2–C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), C0–2 Cobb angle and T1 slope, were compared. The cervical curvature, range of motion (ROM) and JOA score were also compared.

Results

The average follow-up time was 16.7 months (range 3–40 months). C2–C7 SVA significantly increased in the bilateral elevation group (+4.9 mm, P = 0.005) but remained unchanged in the unilateral elevation group (−0.2 mm, P = 0.414). The C0–2 Cobb angle increased in both groups (+4.1°, P < 0.001; +2.5°, P = 0.002). The T1 slope also increased in both groups (+1.1°, P = 0.015; +0.7°, P = 0.042). The postoperative C3–C7 curvature significantly decreased in the bilateral elevation group (−4.1°, P < 0.001). The C3–C7 ROM decreased in both groups (−17.9°, P < 0.001; −15.1°, P < 0.001). C2–C7 SVA was positively correlated with the T1 slope (Pearson = 0.468, P < 0.001) and negatively correlated with the C3–C7 curvature (Pearson = −0.322, P = 0.001). The C0–2 Cobb angle was positively correlated with C2–C7 SVA (Pearson = 0.303, P = 0.004) and negatively correlated with the C3–C7 curvature (Pearson = −0.362, P < 0.001). There was no significant between-group difference in the JOA improvement rate.

Conclusions

Open-door laminoplasty significantly affected postoperative cervical sagittal balance, with the cervical vertebra appearing to tilt forward. As the severity of surgical invasion to the posterior muscular-ligament complex increased, the loss of cervical sagittal balance also increased.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chiba K, Ogawa Y, Ishii K et al (2006) Long-term results of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy—average 14-year follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:2998–3005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishihara H et al (2003) Minimum 10-year follow up after en bloc cervical laminoplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 411:129–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tang JA, Scheer JK, Smith JS et al (2012) The impact of standing regional cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes in posterior cervical fusion surgery. Neurosurgery 71:662–669

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. DE Harrison, Harrison DD, Cailliet R et al (2000) Cobb method or Harrison posterior tangent method: which to choose for lateral cervical radiographic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:2072–2078

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bartels RH, Verbeek AL, Benzel EC et al (2010) Validation of a translated version of the modified Japanese orthopaedic association score to assess outcomes in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: an approach to globalize outcomes assessment tools. Neurosurgery 66:1013–1016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chavanne A, Pettigrew DB, Holtz JR et al (2011) Spinal cord intramedullary pressure in cervical kyphotic deformity: a cadaveric study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:1619–1626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Smith JS, Lafage V, Ryan DJ et al (2013) Association of myelopathy scores with cervical sagittal balance and normalized spinal cord volume: analysis of 56 preoperative cases from the AOSpine North America Myelopathy Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:S161–S170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Knott PT, Mardjetko SM, Techy F (2010) The use of the T1 sagittal angle in predicting overall sagittal balance of the spine. Spine J 10:994–998

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim TH, Lee SY, Kim YC et al (2013) T1 slope as a predictor of kyphotic alignment change after laminoplasty in cervical myelopathy patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E992–E997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ames CP, Blondel B, Scheer JK et al (2013) Cervical radiographic alignment: comprehensive assessment techniques and potential importance in cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:S149–S160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang S, Passias PG, Cui L et al (2013) Does atlantoaxial dislocation influence the subaxial cervical spine? Eur Spine J 22:1603–1607

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nolan JP Jr, Sherk HH (1988) Biomechanical evaluation of the extensor muscular of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13:9–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Vasavada AN, Li S, Delp SL (1998) Influence of muscle morphometry and moment arms on the moment-generating capacity of human neck muscles. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:412–422

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Luk KD, Kamath V, Avadhani A et al (2010) Cervical laminoplasty. Eur Spine J 19:347–348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M et al (2009) Minimum 2-year outcome of cervical laminoplasty with deep extensor muscle-preserving approach: impact on cervical spine function and quality of life. Eur Spine J 18:663–671

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Takeuchi K, Yokoyama T, Ono A et al (2007) Cervical range of motion and alignment after laminoplasty preserving or reattaching the semispinalis cervicis inserted into axis. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:571–576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sakaura H, Hosono N, Mukai Y et al (2011) Medium-term outcomes of C3–6 laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy: a prospective study with a minimum 5-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 20:928–933

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ratliff JK, Cooper PR (2003) Cervical laminoplasty: a critical review. J Neurosurg Spine 98:230–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sun Y, Zhang F, Wang S et al (2010) Open door expansive laminoplasty and postoperative axial symptoms: a comparative study between two different procedures. Evid Based Spine Care J 1:27–34

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu J, Bergheim NA, Sanford CG Jr et al (2007) Preservation of the spinous process ligament muscle complex to prevent kyphotic deformity following laminoplasty. Spine J 7:159–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Ishihara H et al (1999) Axial symptoms after en bloc cervical laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord 12:392–395

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sakaura H, Hosono N, Mukai Y et al (2010) Preservation of muscles attached to the C2 and C7 spinous processes rather than subaxial deep extensors reduces adverse effects after cervical laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:E782–E786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yoshida M, Tamaki T, Kawakami M et al (2002) Does reconstruction of posterior ligamentous complex with extensor musculature decrease axial symptoms after cervical laminoplasty? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:1414–1418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hosono N, Sakaura H, Mukai Y et al (2006) C3–6 laminoplasty takes over C3–7 laminoplasty with significantly lower incidence of axial neck pain. Eur Spine J 15:1375–1379

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tsuji T, Asazuma T, Masuoka K et al (2007) Retrospective cohort study between selective and standard C3-7 laminoplasty. Minimum 2-year follow-up study. Eur Spine J 16:2072–2077

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tani S, Isoshima A, Nagashima Y et al (2002) Laminoplasty with preservation of posterior cervical elements: surgical technique. Neurosurgery 50:97–101

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Qiu S, Sun Y, Zhang F et al (2010) Effect of open-door laminoplasty together with preservation of the unilateral paraspinal muscle ligament complex on the posterior muscle volume of cervical spine. Chin J Spine Spinal Cord 20:401–405 (article in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Department, Peking University Third Hospital, 49 North Garden Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China

    Shengrong Lin, Feifei Zhou, Yu Sun, Zhongqiang Chen, Fengshan Zhang & Shengfa Pan

Authors
  1. Shengrong Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Feifei Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yu Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhongqiang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fengshan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shengfa Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu Sun.

Additional information

S. Lin and F. Zhou contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, S., Zhou, F., Sun, Y. et al. The severity of operative invasion to the posterior muscular-ligament complex influences cervical sagittal balance after open-door laminoplasty. Eur Spine J 24, 127–135 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3605-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3605-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation