Laminoplasty with selective fusion at unstable segment versus laminectomy with fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: a case‐control study

Background Segmental cervical instability is a risk factor for the progression of osteophytic bone spurs and development of myelopathy, and is treated as a relative contraindication of cervical laminoplasty. The aim of this study was to compare laminoplasty with selective fixation (LPSF) versus laminectomy with fusion (LCF) in patients with multilevel cervical myelopathy accompanied by segmental instability. Methods A case-control study was conducted by reviewing data from 63 patients who underwent LPSF (n = 30) or LCF (n = 33). Cervical alignment, range of motion (ROM), neurologic status and axial symptom severity pre-operation, 3-days after operation, and at the final follow-up (minimum 24 months) were measured and compared between groups. Results Postoperation, patients in the LPSF group lost 31.1 ± 17.3 % of cervical lordosis and 43.2 ± 10.9 % cervical ROM while patients in the LCF group lost 5.7 ± 8.2 % and 67.9 ± 15.5 %, respectively. Both LPSF and LCF groups significantly improved neurologic status and axial symptom severity at the final follow-up with similar between-group results(P > 0.05). Blood loss, operation time, hospital stay, and medical cost in the LPSF group were significantly less than in the LCF group(P < 0.05). Conclusions In 2 years of clinical observation, LPSF was effective in maintaining the stability of the cervical spine with less sacrifice of mobility and surgical trauma for multilevel myelopathy with segmental instability compared to LCF.

Laminoplasty with selective fusion at unstable segment versus laminectomy with fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: A retrospective comparative study

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare laminoplasty with selective fixation (LPSF) versus laminectomy with fusion (LCF) in patients with multilevel cervical myelopathy accompanied by segmental instability.Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted by reviewing data from 63 patients who underwent LPSF (n=30) or LCF (n=33). Cervical alignment, range of motion (ROM), neurologic status and axial symptom severity pre-operation, 3-days after operation, and at the final follow-up (minimum 24 months) were measured and compared between groups.Results Postoperation, patients in the LPSF group lost 31.1±17.3% of cervical lordosis and 43.2±10.9% cervical ROM while patients in the LCF group lost 5.7±8.2% and 67.9±15.5%, respectively. Both LPSF and LCF groups significantly improved neurologic status and axial symptom severity at the final follow-up with similar between-group results(P>0.05). Blood loss, operation time, hospital stay, and medical cost in the LPSF group were significantly less than in the LCF group(P<0.05). The incidence of negative events were statistically similar between groups.Conclusion According to our results, LPSF was effective in maintaining the stability of the cervical spine with less sacrifice of mobility and surgical trauma for multilevel myelopathy with segmental instability compared to LCF.

Comparative Effectiveness and Functional Outcome of Open-Door versus French-Door Laminoplasty for Multilevel Cervical Myelopathy: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: At present, few reports are comparing these 2 major cervical posterior laminoplasty methods with Open-door and French-door Laminoplasty in terms of neurological recovery, cervical alignment, and surgical complications. Moreover, most of the research has not been well designed. AIM: This study aims to determine comparative effectiveness and functional outcome of open-door versus french-door laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy. METHODS: The Meta-analysis is used in this study. The study sample is a published research articles on comparative effectiveness and functional outcome of open-door versus french-door laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy on the internet through databases on PubMed and ProQuest and published between 1997 until December 2018. Weighted mean difference and pooled weighted mean difference are calculated by using the fixed-effect model or random-effect model. Data is processed by using Review Manager 5.3 (RevMan 5.3). RESULTS: This study reviews 58 articles. There are 6 studies conducted a systematic review and continued with Meta-analysis of relevant data. The results showed significant higher postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score in open-door laminoplasty (ODL) than French-door laminoplasty (FDL) (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35 to 1.07; p < 0.05). The outcome of procedures treatment of multilevel cervical myelopathy revealed the operative time, cervical range of motion, axial canal diameter postoperative, axial pain reduction and complications events in ODL and FDL there was no significant difference. But for a cervical lordotic angle in ODL and FDL, there was a significant difference; the ODL group were significantly lesser than the FDL group. The recovery rate in ODL and FDL, there was a significant difference; the ODL was shown to be significantly higher than FDL (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that neither cervical laminoplasty approach is superior, based on the postoperative radiological data and complication rate. But the open-door laminoplasty resulted in a higher functional outcome and recovery rate as compared to the French-door laminoplasty.

Outcome of Laminoplasty in Patients with Multilevel Cervical Myelopathy

Objective: To determine the outcome of surgical intervention in the form of laminoplasty in the patients with multilevel cervical myelopathy. Material and Methods: Descriptive case series, was conducted at NS-I, PINS, Lahore for 6 months. The patients were included through non probability consecutive sampling that fulfilled inclusion criteria. All of the patients were assessed using JOA score before and after 2 months of surgery. General characteristics, including age, gender, other medical conditions and other risk factors were assessed prior to surgery. The total number of 35 patients was included with expected JOA percentage recovery rate of 75% + 21% after the procedure. Results: In this study 35 total patients were enrolled. The mean age was 55.68 + 9.92 years. Total number of male patients were 23 (65.71), while the female was 12 (34.29). The mean duration of degenerative cervical myelopathy was 3.90 + 1.3 months. The mean pre op value of JOA score was 7.08 + 2.7 (4 – 10) for the patients. The mean post op score was 13.00 + 2.30 (9 – 17). The mean recovery value calculated at two month interval was 62.12 + 17.39 (38.46 – 100). Statistically, there was a significant difference of outcome of pre and post op value of JOA scores i.e., p value = 0.00. Conclusion: Our study determined that, the open door laminoplasty is an effective and reliable technique with good outcome in the treatment of multi-level degenerative cervical spine myelopathy patients.