Comparison of Early Surgical Outcome between Unilateral Open-Door Laminoplasty and Midline Splitting Laminoplasty

  • Baek, Hyun-Chul (Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center) ;
  • Kang, Suk-Hyung (Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center) ;
  • Jeon, Sang-Ryong (Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center) ;
  • Roh, Sung-Woo (Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center) ;
  • Rhim, Seung-Chul (Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center)
  • Published : 2007.06.30

Abstract

Objective : Various techniques of cervical laminoplasty have been developed to decompress the spinal canal in patients with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. This study compared the early surgical outcomes between unilateral open-door laminoplasty and midline splitting cervical laminoplasty. Materials and Methods : From March 2004 to August 2005, we performed cervical laminoplasty in 34 patients with cervical myelopathy. Of these patients, 24 were treated by unilateral open-door laminoplasty [open-door group] and 10 by midline splitting cervical laminoplasty [splitting group]. The mean duration of follow up was 9.2 months in the open-door group and 15.8 months in the splitting group. We retrospectively analyzed neurological outcomes using the Japanese Orthopedic Association [JOA] score, and compared the radiological changes between the two groups. Results : Postoperative JOA score and recovery rate were $13.29{\pm}4.01$ and $56.28{\pm}44.91%$ in the open-door group and $15.75{\pm}0.88$ and $72.69{\pm}19.99%$ in the splitting group. There was no statistical difference between the two groups [p>0.05]. Regarding the radiological assessment, the increase of postoperative axial canal area was $63.23{\pm}23.24%$ in the open-door group and $42.30{\pm}14.96%$ in the splitting group [p<0,05]. Conclusion : There was no statistical difference in the neurological outcome when the early surgical outcomes of the open-door group and the splitting group were compared. However, the open-door group showed wider cervical spinal canal areas than the splitting group.

Keywords

References

  1. Cheng WC, Chang CN, Lui TN, Lee ST, Wong CW, Lin TK : Surgical treatment for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine. Surg Neurol 41 : 90-97, 1994 https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-3019(94)90104-X
  2. Fujimura Y, Nishi Y, Chiba K, Nakamura M, Hirabayashi K : Multiple regression analysis of the factors influencing the results of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 117 : 471-474, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1007/s004020050296
  3. Hamburger C, Buttner A, Uhl E : The cross-sectional area of the cervical spinal canal in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy : correlation of preoperative and postoperative area with clinical symptoms. Spine 22 : 1990-1994, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199709010-00009
  4. Hirabayashi K, Satomi K : Operative procedure and results of expansive open-door laminoplasty. Spine 13 : 870-876, 1988 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198807000-00032
  5. Hirabayashi K, Toyama Y, Chiba K : Expansive laminoplasty for myelopathy in ossification of the longitudinal ligament. Clin Orthop 359 : 35-48, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199902000-00005
  6. Hukuda S, Ogata M, Mochizuki T, Shichikawa K : Laminectomy versus laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy : brief report. J Bone Joint Surg Br 70 : 325-326, 1988
  7. Kaminsky SB, Clark CR, Traynelis VC : Operative treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy : a comparison of laminectomy and laminoplasty at five year average follow-up. Iowa Orthop J 24 : 95-105, 2004
  8. Kawakami M, Tamaki T, Iwasaki H, Yoshida M, Ando M, Yamada H : A comparative study of surgical approaches for cervical compressive myelopathy. Clin Orthop 381 : 129-136, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200012000-00016
  9. Kim SJ, Song JH, Kim MH, Park HK, Kim SH, Shin KM, et al : The prognostic implications of radiological findings after laminoplasty in cervical myelopathy patients. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 26 : 961-970, 1997
  10. Kimura I, Oh-hama M, Shingu H : Cervical myelopathy treated by canalexpansive laminoplasty : computed tomographic and myelographic findings. J Bone Joint Surg 66A : 914-920, 1984
  11. Koyanagi T, Hirabayashi K, Satomi K, Toyama Y, Fujimura Y : Predictability of operative results of cervical compression myelopathy based on preoperative computed tomographic myelography. Spine 18 : 1958-1963, 1993 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199310001-00006
  12. Naito M, Ogata K, Kurose S, Oyama M : Canal-expansive laminoplasty in 83 patients with cervical myelopathy : a comparative study of three different procedures. Int Orthop 18 : 347-351, 1994
  13. Patel CK, Cunningham BJ, Herkowitz HN : Techniques in cervical laminoplasty. The Spine J 2 : 450-455, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-9430(01)00158-9
  14. Ratliff JK, Cooper PR : Cervical laminoplasty : a critical review. J Neurosurg (Spine 3) 98 : 230-238, 2003 https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2003.98.3.0230
  15. Satomi K, Nishu Y, Kohno T, Hirabayashi K : Long-term follow-up studies of open-door expansive laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine 19 : 507-510, 1994 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199403000-00003
  16. Steinmetz MP, Resnick DK : Cervical laminoplasty. The Spine J 6 : 274-281, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2006.04.023
  17. Wada E, Suzuki S, Kanazawa A, Matsuoka T, Miyamoto S, Yonenobu K : Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy : a long-term follow-up study over 10 years. Spine 26 : 1443-1448, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200107010-00011
  18. Wang XY, Dai LY, Xu HZ, Chi YL : Prediction of spinal canal expansion following cervical laminoplasty : a computer-simulated comparison between single and double-door techniques. Spine 31 : 2863-2870, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000245851.55012.f1
  19. Yue WM, Tan CT, Tan SB, Tan SK, Tay BK : Results of cervical laminoplasty and a comparison between single and double trap-door techniques. J Spinal Disord 13 : 329-335, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1097/00002517-200008000-00010