Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with posterior spinal fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: influence of cervical alignment on outcomes

Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine - Tập 27 Số 5 - Trang 508-517 - 2017
Darryl Lau1, Ethan A. Winkler1, Khoi D. Than2, Dean Chou1, Praveen V. Mummaneni1
1Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco; and
2Department of Neurosurgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon

Tóm tắt

OBJECTIVECervical curvature is an important factor when deciding between laminoplasty and laminectomy with posterior spinal fusion (LPSF) for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). This study compares outcomes following laminoplasty and LPSF in patients with matched postoperative cervical lordosis.METHODSAdults undergoing laminoplasty or LPSF for cervical CSM from 2011 to 2014 were identified. Matched cohorts were obtained by excluding LPSF patients with postoperative cervical Cobb angles outside the range of laminoplasty patients. Clinical outcomes and radiographic results were compared. A subgroup analysis of patients with and without preoperative pain was performed, and the effects of cervical curvature on pain outcomes were examined.RESULTSA total of 145 patients were included: 101 who underwent laminoplasty and 44 who underwent LPSF. Preoperative Nurick scale score, pain incidence, and visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain scores were similar between the two groups. Patients who underwent LPSF had significantly less preoperative cervical lordosis (5.8° vs 10.9°, p = 0.018). Preoperative and postoperative C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) and T-1 slope were similar between the two groups. Laminoplasty cases were associated with less blood loss (196.6 vs 325.0 ml, p < 0.001) and trended toward shorter hospital stays (3.5 vs 4.3 days, p = 0.054). The perioperative complication rate was 8.3%; there was no significant difference between the groups. LPSF was associated with a higher long-term complication rate (11.6% vs 2.2%, p = 0.036), with pseudarthrosis accounting for 3 of 5 complications in the LPSF group. Follow-up cervical Cobb angle was similar between the groups (8.8° vs 7.1°, p = 0.454). At final follow-up, LPSF had a significantly lower mean Nurick score (0.9 vs 1.4, p = 0.014). Among patients with preoperative neck pain, pain incidence (36.4% vs 31.3%, p = 0.629) and VAS neck pain (2.1 vs 1.8, p = 0.731) were similar between the groups. Similarly, in patients without preoperative pain, there was no significant difference in pain incidence (19.4% vs 18.2%, p = 0.926) and VAS neck pain (1.0 vs 1.1, p = 0.908). For laminoplasty, there was a significant trend for lower pain incidence (p = 0.010) and VAS neck pain (p = 0.004) with greater cervical lordosis, especially when greater than 20° (p = 0.011 and p = 0.018). Mean follow-up was 17.3 months.CONCLUSIONSFor patients with CSM, LPSF was associated with slightly greater blood loss and a higher long-term complication rate, but offered greater neurological improvement than laminoplasty. In cohorts of matched follow-up cervical sagittal alignment, pain outcomes were similar between laminoplasty and LPSF patients. However, among laminoplasty patients, greater cervical lordosis was associated with better pain outcomes, especially for lordosis greater than 20°. Cervical curvature (lordosis) should be considered as an important factor in pain outcomes following posterior decompression for multilevel CSM.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Adogwa O, Huang K, Hazzard M, Chagoya G, Owens R, Cheng J, : Outcomes after cervical laminectomy with instrumented fusion versus expansile laminoplasty: a propensity matched study of 3185 patients. J Clin Neurosci 22:549–553, 20152551578110.1016/j.jocn.2014.10.001

Albert TJ, Vacarro A: Postlaminectomy kyphosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:2738–2745, 1998987909910.1097/00007632-199812150-00014

Harroud A, Labelle H, Joncas J, Mac-Thiong JM: Global sagittal alignment and health-related quality of life in lumbosacral spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 22:849–856, 20132318418310.1007/s00586-012-2591-6

Heller JG, Edwards CC II, Murakami H, Rodts GE: Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched cohort analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:1330–1336, 20011142614710.1097/00007632-200106150-00013

Highsmith JM, Dhall SS, Haid RW Jr, Rodts GE Jr, Mummaneni PV: Treatment of cervical stenotic myelopathy: a cost and outcome comparison of laminoplasty versus laminectomy and lateral mass fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 14:619–625, 201110.3171/2011.1.SPINE1020621388285

Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, Suzuki N, Satomi K, Ishii Y: Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 8:693–699, 1983642089510.1097/00007632-198310000-00003

Hosono N, Yonenobu K, Ono K: Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty. A noticeable complication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:1969–1973, 199610.1097/00007632-199609010-000058883196

Karadimas SK, Erwin WM, Ely CG, Dettori JR, Fehlings MG: Pathophysiology and natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38 (22 Suppl 1):S21–S36, 201310.1097/BRS.0b013e318215552c

Kuntz C IV, Levin LS, Ondra SL, Shaffrey CI, Morgan CJ: Neutral upright sagittal spinal alignment from the occiput to the pelvis in asymptomatic adults: a review and resynthesis of the literature. J Neurosurg Spine 6:104–112, 20071733057610.3171/spi.2007.6.2.104

Lee CH, Lee J, Kang JD, Hyun SJ, Kim KJ, Jahng TA, : Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: a meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine 22:589–595, 20152581580810.3171/2014.10.SPINE1498

Lee DH, Park SA, Kim NH, Hwang CJ, Kim YT, Lee CS, : Laminar closure after classic Hirabayashi open-door laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E1634–E1640, 201110.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7eb7c

Luo J, Cao K, Huang S, Li L, Yu T, Cao C, : Comparison of anterior approach versus posterior approach for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J 24:1621–1630, 20152584078110.1007/s00586-015-3911-4

Manzano GR, Casella G, Wang MY, Vanni S, Levi AD: A prospective, randomized trial comparing expansile cervical laminoplasty and cervical laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy. Neurosurgery 70:264–277, 201210.1227/NEU.0b013e318230566922251974

Matz PG, Anderson PA, Holly LT, Groff MW, Heary RF, Kaiser MG, : The natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 11:104–111, 200910.3171/2009.1.SPINE0871619769489

Núñez-Pereira S, Hitzl W, Bullmann V, Meier O, Koller H: Sagittal balance of the cervical spine: an analysis of occipitocervical and spinopelvic interdependence, with C-7 slope as a marker of cervical and spinopelvic alignment. J Neurosurg Spine 23:16–23, 20152590927110.3171/2014.11.SPINE14368

Nurboja B, Kachramanoglou C, Choi D: Cervical laminectomy vs laminoplasty: is there a difference in outcome and postoperative pain? Neurosurgery 70:965–970, 201210.1227/NEU.0b013e31823cf16b

Nurick S: The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 95:87–100, 1972502309310.1093/brain/95.1.87

Protopsaltis T, Schwab F, Bronsard N, Smith JS, Klineberg E, Mundis G, : The T1 pelvic angle, a novel radiographic measure of global sagittal deformity, accounts for both spinal inclination and pelvic tilt and correlates with health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:1631–1640, 201410.2106/JBJS.M.0145925274788

Sakaura H, Hosono N, Mukai Y, Iwasaki M, Yoshikawa H: 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, 201110.1007/s00586-011-1690-021264674

Scheer JK, Tang JA, Smith JS, Acosta FL Jr, Protopsaltis TS, Blondel B, : Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications: a review. J Neurosurg Spine 19:141–159, 201310.3171/2013.4.SPINE1283823768023

Schwab F, Patel A, Ungar B, Farcy JP, Lafage V: Adult spinal deformity-postoperative standing imbalance: how much can you tolerate? An overview of key parameters in assessing alignment and planning corrective surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:2224–2231, 201010.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ee6bd421102297

Subramaniam V, Chamberlain RH, Theodore N, Baek S, Safavi-Abbasi S, Senoğlu M, : Biomechanical effects of laminoplasty versus laminectomy: stenosis and stability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:E573–E578, 2009

Tang JA, Scheer JK, Smith JS, Deviren V, Bess S, Hart RA, : The impact of standing regional cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes in posterior cervical fusion surgery. Neurosurgery 76 (Suppl 1):S14–S21, 2015

Varthi AG, Basques BA, Bohl DD, Golinvaux NS, Grauer JN: Perioperative outcomes after cervical laminoplasty versus posterior decompression and fusion: analysis of 779 patients in the ACS-NSQIP database. J Spinal Disord Tech 29:E226–E232, 2016

Woods BI, Hohl J, Lee J, Donaldson W III, Kang J: Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:688–695, 20112108900210.1007/s11999-010-1653-5

Yamane K, Sugimoto Y, Tanaka M, Arataki S, Takigawa T, Ozaki T: Laminar closure rates in patients with cervical myelopathies treated with either open-door laminoplasty with reattachment of spinous processes and extensor musculature or Hirabayashi open-door laminoplasty: a case-control study. Eur Spine J 25:1869–1874, 20162682114110.1007/s00586-016-4398-3

Yoon ST, Hashimoto RE, Raich A, Shaffrey CI, Rhee JM, Riew KD: Outcomes after laminoplasty compared with laminectomy and fusion in patients with cervical myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38 (22 Suppl 1):S183–S194, 2013

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine

Tập 27 Số 5

508-517

Thông tin tác giả