Kazunari Takeuchi, Toru Yokoyama, Kanichiro Wada, Gentaro Kumagai, Eiji Sasaki, Yasuyuki Ishibashi

Critical points and effectiveness of prophylactic C4/5 foraminotomy to prevent C5 palsy after posterior cervical spine surgery

Objective: The aim of this study was to clarify the cut-off values of the spinal canal parameters as risk factors for C5 palsy after posterior cervical spine surgery with and without foraminotomy. Methods: One hundred three consecutive patients (67 males, 36 females; mean age = 66 years, age range = 27–87 years) with cervical myelopathy who underwent posterior cervical spine surgery at our institution were retrospectively reviewed and included in the study. The first consecutive 69 patients who underwent posterior cervical spine surgery with prophylactic bilateral C4/5 foraminotomy were designated as the F (+) group. The subsequent 34 consecutive patients who underwent posterior cervical spine surgery without prophylactic bilateral C4/5 foraminotomy were designated as the F (–) group. All patients were then divided into four subgroups. In the F (+) group, patients with C5 palsy were designated as the F (+) P (+) subgroup (n = 13), while those without C5 palsy were designated as the F (+) P (−) subgroup (n = 56). In the F (−) group, patients with C5 palsy were designated as the F (−) P (+) subgroup (n = 5), while those without C5 palsy were designated as the F (−) P (−) subgroup (n = 29). Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to investigate the cut-off values of the spinal canal parameters for the development of postoperative C5 palsy. The assessed spinal parameters were the gutter positions (GP), laminar inclination angles (LIA), and postoperative cross-sectional areas (CSA) of the dural sac. The risk ratios (RR) of the spinal canal parameters as risk factors for C5 palsy were evaluated. Results: The incidence of C5 palsy was similar between the F (+) group (18.8%) and the F (−) group (14.7%). The cut-off values for each spinal canal parameter in the F (+) group (GP: 0.82–0.84, LIA: 58.9–62.4°, and CSA: 189.5–200 mm 2 ) were similar to those in the F (–) group (0.81–0.89, 61.7–62.5°, and 197.5–199.5 mm 2 , respectively). In the RR results for C5 palsy, the LIA was highest in both groups. The F (+) P (−) subgroup had significantly larger mean CSA at C4/5 and C5/6 (202.3 mm 2 and 200.9 mm 2 , respectively) than the F (−) P (−) subgroup (177.3 mm 2 and 178.9 mm 2 , respectively) (P = 0.0181 and P = 0.0277, respectively). Prophylactic C4/5 foraminotomy did not specifically prevent postoperative C5 palsy due to foraminal stenosis at C4/5. Conclusion: C4/5 foraminotomy should not be recommended for avoidance of C5 palsy. Although the bony spinal parameters were similar between the F (+) and F (−) groups, the CSA in the F (+) group was significantly than that in the F (−) group in the patients without C5 palsy.

PDF

___

1. Shiozaki T, Otsuka H, Nakata Y, et al. Spinal cord shift on magnetic resonance imaging at 24 hours after cervical laminoplasty. Spine. 2009;34(3):274-279. 10. 1097/BRS.0b013e318194e275
2. Nakashima H, Imagama S, Yukawa Y, et al. Multivariate analysis of C-5 palsy after cervical posterior fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17 (2):103-110. 10.3171/2012.4.SPINE11255
3. Bydon M, Macki M, Aygun N, et al. Development of postoperative C5 palsy is associated with wider posterior decompression: An analysis of 41 patients. Spine J. 2014;13(6):2861-2867. 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.03.040
4. Baba S, Ikuta K, Ikeuchi H, et al. Risk factor analysis for C5 palsy after double-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Asian Spine J. 2016;10(2):298-308. 10.4184/asj.2016.10.2.298
5. Lim CH, Roh SW, Rhim SC, Jeon SR. Clinical analysis of C5 palsy after cervical decompression surgery: Relationship between recovery duration and clinical and radiological factors. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(4):1101-1110. 10.1007/s00586- 016-4664-4
6. Nori S, Aoyama R, Ninomiya K, et al. Cervical laminoplasty of limited width prevents postoperative C5 palsy: A multivariate analysis of 263 muscle-preserving posterior decompression cases. Eur Spine J. 2017;26 (9):2393-2403. 10.1007/s00586-017-5202-8
7. Sasai K, Saito T, Akagi S, Kato I, Ohnari H, Iida H. Preventing C5 palsy after laminoplasty. Spine. 2003;28(17):1972-1977. 10.1097/01.BRS.0000083237. 94535.46
8. Komagata M, Nishiyama M, Endo K, Ikegami H, Tanaka S, Imakiire A. Prophy- laxis of C5 palsy after cervical expansive laminoplasty by bilateral partial foraminotomy. Spine J. 2004;4(6):650-655. 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.03.022
9. Katsumi K, Yamazaki A, Watanabe K, Ohashi M, Shoji H. Can prophylactic bilateral C4/C5 foraminotomy prevent postoperative C5 palsy after open-door laminoplasty? A prospective study. Spine. 2012;37(9):748-754. 10.1097/BRS. 0b013e3182326957
10. Liu G, Reyes MR, Riew KD. Why does C5palsy occur after prophylactic bilateral. Glob Spine J. 2017;7(7):696-702. 10.1177/2192568217699191
11. Ando M, Tamaki T, Matsumoto T, et al. Can postoperative deltoid weakness after cervical laminoplasty be prevented by using intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring? J Clin Monit Comput. 2019;33(1):123-132. 10.1007/s10877-018-0141-4
12. Fujiwara Y, Manabe H, Izumi B, Tanaka H, Kawai K, Tanaka N. The efficacy of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring using transcranial electrically stimulated muscle-evoked potentials (TcE-MsEPs) for predicting postoperative segmental upper extremity motor paresis after cervical laminoplasty. Clin Spine Surg. 2016;29(4):E188-E195. 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000311
13. Fujiyoshi T, Yamazaki M, Kawabe J, et al. A new concept for making decisions regarding the surgical approach for cervical ossification of the posterior long- itudinal ligament: The K-line. Spine. 2008;33(26):E990-E993. 10.1097/BRS. 0b013e318188b300
14. Takeuchi K, Yokoyama T, Numasawa T, et al. K-line (–) in the neck-flexed position in patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament is a risk factor for poor clinical outcome after cervical laminoplasty. Spine. 2016;41(24):1891-1895. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001660
15. Takeuchi K, Yokoyama T, Aburakawa S, et al. Axial symptoms after cervical laminoplasty with C3 laminectomy compared with conventional C3-C7 lami- noplasty. A modified laminoplasty preserving the semispinalis cervicis inserted into axis. Spine. 2005;30(22):2544-2549. 10.1097/01.brs.0000186332.66490.ba
16. Takeuchi K, Yokoyama T, Numasawa T, Itabashi T, Yamasaki Y, Kudo H. A novel posterior approach preserving three muscles inserted at C2 in multi- level cervical posterior decompression and fusion using C2 pedicle screws. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(6):1349-1357. 10.1007/s00586-017-5402-2
17. Nakano K, Harata S, Suetsuna F, Araki T, Itoh J. Spinous process-splitting laminoplasty using hydroxyapatite spinous process spacer. Spine. 1992;17(3): S41-S43. 10.1097/00007632-199203001-00009
18. Takeuchi K, Yokoyama T, Wada KI, Kudo H. Relationship between enlarge- ment of the cross-sectional area of the dural sac and neurological improve- ments after cervical laminoplasty: Differences between cervical spondylotic myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2019;3(1):27-36. 10.22603/ssrr.2018-0008
19. Katsumi K, Yamazaki A, Watanabe K, Ohashi M, Shoji H. Analysis of C5 palsy after cervical open-door laminoplasty: Relationship between C5 palsy and foraminal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013;26(4):177-182. 10.1097/BSD. 0b013e31823db346
20. Kurakawa T, Miyamoto H, Kaneyama S, Sumi M, Uno K. C5 nerve palsy after posterior reconstruction surgery: Predictive risk factors of the incidence and critical range of correction for kyphosis. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(7):2060-2067. 10. 1007/s00586-016-4548-7
21. Lee HJ, Ahn JS, Shin B, Lee H. C4/5 foraminal stenosis predicts C5 palsy after expansive open-door laminoplasty. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(9):2340-2347. 10.1007/ s00586-017-5077-8
22. Vanagas G. Receiver operating characteristic curves and comparison of cardiac surgery risk stratification systems. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2004;3 (2):319-322. 10.1016/j.icvts.2004.01.008
23. Shinomiya K, Okawa A, Nakao K, et al. Morphology of C5 ventral nerve rootlets as part of dissociated motor loss of deltoid muscle. Spine. 1994;19(22):2501- 2504. 10.1097/00007632-199411001-00002
24. Alleyne CH, Cawley CM, Barrow DL, Bonner GD. Microsurgical anatomy of the dorsal cervical nerve roots and the cervical dorsal root ganglion/ventral root complexes. Surg Neurol. 1998;50(3):213-218. 10.1016/S0090-3019(97) 00315-7
25. Uematsu Y, Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H. Radiculopathy after laminoplasty of the cervical spine. Spine. 1998;23(19):2057-2062. 10.1097/00007632-199810010- 00004
26. Tsuji T, Matsumoto M, Nakamura M, et al. Factors associated with postopera- tive C5 palsy after expansive open-door laminoplasty: Retrospective cohort study using multivariable analysis. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(9):2410-2416. 10. 1007/s00586-017-5223-3
27. Wang T, Wang H, Liu S, Ding WY. Incidence of C5 nerve root palsy after cervical surgery: A meta-analysis for last decade. Medicine. 2017;96(45): e8560. 10.1097/MD.0000000000008560