Çağhan TÖNGE, Şahin HANALİOĞLU, M. Erhan TÜRKOĞLU, Ahmet GÜLMEZ, Çağirı ELBİR, Ömer Selçuk ŞAHİN, Samet DİNÇ, Mehmet KALAN

Surgical outcome of laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a singleinstitution experience

Background/aim: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) develops as a result of compression of the spinal cord in the cervical region. Early diagnosis and surgical treatment can limit the progression of symptoms. Various surgical approaches and strategies have been described in the literature. This study aims to evaluate the clinical and radiological results of open-door laminoplasty for the treatment of CSM. Materials and methods: In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the patients who underwent expansive open-door laminoplasty secured with titanium miniplates. Thirty-four patients with CSM who were followed up postoperatively for more than 12 months were included in the study. The modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score was used to assess the degree of myelopathy. We evaluated cervical sagittal alignment with C2–C7 Cobb angle, the ambulatory status with the Nurick grade, and measured postoperative neck pain with the visual analogue scale (VAS). Results: Themeanm JOA score was 11 (range 6–15) preoperatively, and 13.5 (range 9–16) postoperatively with an average 55% recovery rate (range 0–75) (p < 0.001). Themean–Nurick grade was 2 (range 1–3) preoperatively and 1 (range 0–3) postoperatively (p < 0.001). The median cervical lordotic angle increased from 7.5 ° preoperatively to 12.5 ° postoperatively (p = 0.044). K-line (+) patients› mean mJOA scores significantly increased from 10.8 ± 1.7 to 13.3 ± 1.7 postoperatively (p < 0.001). The mean preoperative VAS reduced from 2.66 ± 1.4 to 1.59 ± 1.4 postoperatively (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Open-door laminoplasty technique is an effective surgical procedure that can be used safely to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Our findings suggest that it can limit the progression of symptoms and alter the poor prognosis in CSM.Key words: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy, K-line, laminoplasty, sagittal balance

PDF

___

1. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1987; 40 (5): 373-383. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8
2. Chen CJ, Lyu RK, Lee ST, Wong YC, Wang LJ. Intramedullary high signal intensity on T2-weighted MR images in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: prediction of prognosis with type of intensity. Radiology 2001; 221 (3): 789-794. doi:10.1148/ radiol.2213010365
3. Cheung WY, Arvinte D, Wong YW, Luk KD, Cheung KM. Neurological recovery after surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy - a prospective study. International Orthopaedics 2008; 32 (2): 273-278. doi:10.1007/ s00264-006-0315-4
4. Duetzmann S, Cole T, Ratliff JK. Cervical laminoplasty developments and trends, 2003-2013: a systematic review. Journal of Neurosurgery Spine 2015; 23 (1): 24-34. doi: 10.3171/2014.11.SPINE14427
5. Heller JG, Edwards CC, Murakami H, Rodts GE. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched cohort analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26 (12): 1330-1336. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200106150-00013
6. 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. Journal of Neurosurgery Spine 2011; 14 (5): 619-625. doi: 10.3171/2011.1.SPINE10206
7. Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, Suzuki N, Satomi K et al. Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1983; 8 (7): 693- 699. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198310000-00003
8. Hukuda S, Mochizuki T, Ogata M, Shichikawa K, Shimomura Y. Operations for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. A comparison of the results of anterior and posterior procedures. The Bone & Joint Journal 1985; 67 (4): 609-615.doi:10.1302/0301- 620X.67B4.4030860
9. Iwasaki M, Kawaguchi Y, Kimura T, Yonenobu K. Longterm results of expansive laminoplasty for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine: more than 10 years follow up. Journal of Neurosurgery 2002; 96 (2): 180-189.
10. Jalai CM, Worley N, Marascalchi BJ, Challier V, Vira S et al. The impact of advanced age on peri-operative outcomes in the surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a nationwide study between 2001 and 2010. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016; 41 (3): 139-147. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001181
11. Kaner T, Sasani M, Oktenoğlu T, Ozer AF. Clinical outcomes following cervical laminoplasty for 19 patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Turkish Journal of Neurosurgery 2009; 19 (2): 121-126.
12. Kawakami M, Tamaki T, Ando M, Yamada H, Yoshida M. Relationships between sagittal alignment of the cervical spine and morphology of the spinal cord and clinical outcomes in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated with expansive laminoplasty. Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques 2002; 15 (5): 391-397. doi: 10.1097/00024720- 200210000-00008
13. Yagi M, Ninomiya K, Kihara M, Horiuchi Y. Long-term surgical outcome and risk factors in patients with cervical myelopathy and a change in signal intensity of intramedullary spinal cord on magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Neurosurgery Spine 2010; 12 (1): 59-65. doi: 10.3171/2009.5.SPINE08940
14. Notani N, Miyazaki M, Kanezaki S, Ishihara T, Tsumura H. Surgical outcomes of laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy in very elderly patients (older than 80 years): time from symptom onset to surgery and changes in spinal cord signal intensity on MRI. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery 2017; 160: 78-82. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.06.019
15. Lara-Almunia M, Hernandez-Vicente J. Open door laminoplasty: creation of a new vertebral arch. The International Journal of Spine Surgery 2017; 11 (1): 6. doi: 10.14444/4006. eCollection 2017
16. Lee CH, Lee J, Kang JD, Hyun SJ, Kim KJ et al. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: a meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes. Journal of Neurosurgery Spine 2015; 22 (6): 589- 595. doi: 10.3171/2014.10.SPINE1498
17. 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 2012; 70 (2): 264-277. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182305669
18. Yang L, Gu Y, Shi J, Gao R, Liu Y et al. Modified plate-only open-door laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical stenotic myelopathy. Orthopedics 2013; 36 (1): 79-87. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20121217-23
19. Li J, Zhang Y, Zhang N, Xv ZK et al. Clinical outcome of laminoplasty for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament with K-line (-) in the neck neutral position but K-line (+) in the neck extension position: a retrospective observational study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96 (22): e6964. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006964
20. Stamates MM, Cui MX, Roitberg BZ. Clinical outcomes of cervical laminoplasty: results at two years. Neurosurgery 2017; 80 (6): 934-941. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyw058
21. Tumturk A, Kucuk A, Menku AA, Koc RK. En Bloc cervical laminoplasty while preserving the posterior structure with arcocristectomy in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Turkish Journal of Neurosurgery 2017; 27 (5): 790-796. doi: 10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.17440-16.0
22. Yang SC, Niu CC, Chen WJ, Wu CH, Yu SW. Opendoor laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: good outcome in 12 patients using suture anchor fixation. ActaOrthopaedica 2008; 79 (1): 62-66. doi: 10.1080/17453670710014770
23. Revanappa KK, Rajshekhar V. Comparison of Nurick grading system and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scoring system in evaluation of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. European Spine Journal 2011; 20 (9): 1545-1551. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1773-y
24. Vedantam A, Jonathan A, Rajshekhar V. Association of magnetic resonance imaging signal changes and outcome prediction after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Journal of Neurosurgery Spine 2011; 15 (6): 660-666. doi:10.3171/2011.8.SPINE11452
25. Vitzthum HE, Dalitz K. Analysis of five specific scores for cervical spondylogenic myelopathy. European Spine Journal 2007; 16 (12): 2096-2103. doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0512-x
26. Nagashima H, Dokai T, Hashiguchi H, Ishii H, Kameyama Y et al. Clinical features and surgical outcomes of cervical spondylotic myelopathy in patients aged 80 years or older: a multi-center retrospective study. European Spine Journal 2011; 20 (2): 240-246. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1672-7
27. Yoshida G, Kanemura T, Ishikawa Y, Matsumoto A, Ito Z et al. The effects of surgery on locomotion in elderly patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. European Spine Journal 2013; 22 (11): 2545-2551. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2961-8
28. Takeshima Y, Matsuoka R, Nakagawa I, Nishimura F, Nakase H. Surgical outcome of laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy in an elderly population - potentiality for effective early surgical intervention: a meta-analysis. Neurologia medico-chirurgica (Tokyo) 2017; 57 (7): 366-373. doi: 10.2176/ nmc.ra.2016-0302
29. Nagata K, Ohashi T, Abe J, Morita M, Inoue A. Cervical myelopathy in elderly patients: clinical results and MRI findings before and after decompression surgery. Spinal Cord 1996; 34 (4): 220-226. doi: 10.1038/sc.1996.41
30. Weinberg DS, Rhee JM. Cervical laminoplasty: indication, technique, complications. Journal of Spine Surgery 2020; 6 (1): 290-301. doi: 10.21037/jss.2020.01.05.
31. Machino M, Yukawa Y, Hida T, Ito K, Nakashima H et al. Can elderly patients recover adequately after laminoplasty? A comparative study of 520 patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37 (8): 667-671. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823147c9
32. Vedantam A, Rajshekhar V. Does the type of T2-weighted hyperintensity influence surgical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy? A review. European Spine Journal 2013; 22 (1): 96-106. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2483-9.
33. Ohshio I, Hatayama A, Kaneda K, Takahara M, Nagashima K. Correlation between histopathologic features and magnetic resonance images of spinal cord lesions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993; 18 (9): 1140-1149. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199307000- 00005
34. Koda M, Mochizuki M, Konishi H, Aiba A, Kadota R et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes between laminoplasty, posterior decompression with instrumented fusion, and anterior decompression with fusion for K-line (-) cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. European Spine Journal 2016; 25 (7): 2294-2301. doi: 10.1007/s00586- 016-4555-8
35. Takeuchi K, Yokoyama T, Numasawa T, Yamasaki Y, Kudo H 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 2016; 41 (24): 1891-1895. doi: 10.1097/ BRS.0000000000001660
36. Kim B, Yoon DH, Shin HC, Kim KN, Yi S et al. Surgical outcome and prognostic factors of anterior decompression and fusion for cervical compressive myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. The Spine Journal 2015; 15 (5): 875-884. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.01.028
37. Lee DG, Lee SH, Park SJ, Kim ES, Chung SS et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes after cervical laminoplasty: open-door technique versus French-door technique. Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques 2013; 26 (6): 198-203. doi: 10.1097/ BSD.0b013e31828bb296
38. Mesfin A, Park MS, Piyaskulkaew C, Chuntarapas T, Song KS et al. Neck pain following laminoplasty. Global Spine Journal 2015; 5 (1): 17-22. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1394297