Advertisement

Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes in cervical laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion in patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament

  • Yoon Ha
  • Jun Jae ShinEmail author
Original Article
  • 41 Downloads

Abstract

This study aimed to comparatively assess cervical sagittal alignment, progression of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes between patients who underwent cervical laminoplasty (CL) and those who underwent cervical laminectomy with fusion (LF) for cervical OPLL at more than three levels. We retrospectively evaluated consecutive 91 patients with cervical OPLL undergoing CL (n = 49) or LF (n = 42) who were followed up for at least 24 months (mean 38.6 months). We analyzed radiological measurements (C2–7 sagittal vertical axis [C2–7 SVA], C0–2 angle, C2–7 lordotic angle, T1 slope, and range of motion [ROM]), OPLL thickness, and clinical outcomes (visual analog scale [VAS], neck disability index [NDI], Short Form-36, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association [JOA] scores). Compared with preoperative levels, postoperative C2–7 SVA increased significantly increased in the LF (15.05 mm) and CL (7.86 mm) groups (P = 0.0021). Loss of cervical lordosis and ROM was significantly larger in the cervical LF group (P = 0.0296, P = 0.0004). Improvements in HRQOL, JOA recovery ratio, and VAS were similar between both groups, while NDI improved more significantly in the CL group (P = 0.0425). The postoperative neck VAS correlated positively with the change (Δ) of C2–7 SVA (P = 0.0174) and negatively with the change (Δ) of C2–7 lordotic angle (P = 0.0354). Progression of OPLL thickness in the LF (0.31 ± 0.37 mm) was significantly smaller than in the CL group (1.09 ± 0.64 mm) (P < 0.0001). CL was superior to LF in preserving cervical ROM, preoperative cervical lordosis, and minimizing neck disability. The stabilization obtained by adding instrumented fusion could suppress the progression of OPLL thickness.

Keywords

Laminoplasty Laminectomy with fusion Ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament Sagittal alignment Cervical myelopathy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Hyun Kyung Park, PhD, for her contributions in drafting the manuscript and revising it for important intellectual content.

Authors’ contributions

JJS analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. YH revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content and approved the final version to be submitted. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding information

This work was supported by the 2018 Inje University research grant.

Compliance with ethical standards

This study was approved by the local ethical committee and the institutional review board (SGPAIK 2018-05-014).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent from each patient is not required; instead, an ethical approval has been made by the regional ethics board.

References

  1. 1.
    Anakwenze OA, Auerbach JD, Buck DW, Garg S, Simon SL, Sutton LN, Sponseller PD, Dormans JP (2011) The role of concurrent fusion to prevent spinal deformity after intramedullary spinal cord tumor excision in children. J Pediatr Orthop 31:475–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arvind V, Kim JS, Oermann EK, Kaji D, Cho SK (2018) Predicting surgical complications in adult patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using machine learning. Neurospine 15:329–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blizzard DJ, Caputo AM, Sheets CZ, Klement MR, Michael KW, Isaacs RE, Brown CR (2017) Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of spondylotic cervical myelopathy: short-term follow-up. Eur Spine J 26:85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cho YE, Shin JJ, Kim KS, Chin DK, Kuh SU, Lee JH, Cho WH (2011) The relevance of intramedullary high signal intensity and gadolinium (Gd-DTPA) enhancement to the clinical outcome in cervical compressive myelopathy. Eur Spine J 20:2267–2274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heller JG, Edwards CC 2nd, Murakami H, Rodts GE (2001) Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched cohort analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:1330–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Highsmith JM, Dhall SS, Haid RW Jr, Rodts GE Jr, Mummaneni PV (2011) Treatment of cervical stenotic myelopathy: a cost and outcome comparison of laminoplasty versus laminectomy and lateral mass fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 14:619–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hosono N, Yonenobu K, Ono K (1996) Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty. A noticeable complication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:1969–1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang RC, Girardi FP, Poynton AR, Cammisa FP Jr (2003) Treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myeloradiculopathy with posterior decompression and fusion with lateral mass plate fixation and local bone graft. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hyun SJ, Riew KD, Rhim SC (2013) Range of motion loss after cervical laminoplasty: a prospective study with minimum 5-year follow-up data. Spine J 13:384–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Itoki K, Kurokawa R, Shingo T, Kim P (2018) Effect of myoarchitectonic spinolaminoplasty on concurrent hypertension in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurospine 15:77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Izumi T, Hirano T, Watanabe K, Sano A, Ito T, Endo N (2013) Three-dimensional evaluation of volume change in ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine using computed tomography. Eur Spine J 22:2569–2574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kato Y, Iwasaki M, Fuji T, Yonenobu K, Ochi T (1998) Long-term follow-up results of laminectomy for cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Neurosurg 89:217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Katsumi K, Izumi T, Ito T, Hirano T, Watanabe K, Ohashi M (2016) Posterior instrumented fusion suppresses the progression of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a comparison of laminoplasty with and without instrumented fusion by three-dimensional analysis. Eur Spine J 25:1634–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim P, Murata H, Kurokawa R, Takaishi Y, Asakuno K, Kawamoto T (2007) Myoarchitectonic spinolaminoplasty: efficacy in reconstituting the cervical musculature and preserving biomechanical function. J Neurosurg Spine 7:293–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim TH, Ha Y, Shin JJ, Cho YE, Lee JH, Cho WH (2016) Signal intensity ratio on magnetic resonance imaging as a prognostic factor in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy. Medicine (Baltimore) 95:e4649.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004649 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kimura A, Endo T, Inoue H, Seichi A, Takeshita K (2015) Impact of axial neck pain on quality of life after laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:E1292–E1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kimura H, Fujibayashi S, Takemoto M, Otsuki B, Matsuda S (2014) Spontaneous reduction in ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the thoracic spine after posterior spinal fusion without decompression: a case report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:E417–E419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koda M, Furuya T, Okawa A, Aramomi M, Inada T, Kamiya K, Ota M, Maki S, Ikeda O, Takahashi K, Mannoji C, Yamazaki M (2015) Bone union and remodelling of the non-ossified segment in thoracic ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament after posterior decompression and fusion surgery. Eur Spine J 24:2555–2559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kwon SY, Shin JJ, Lee JH, Cho WH (2015) Prognostic factors for surgical outcome in spinal cord injury associated with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). J Orthop Surg Res 10:94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lapsiwala S, Benzel E (2006) Surgical management of cervical myelopathy dealing with the cervical-thoracic junction. The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society 6:268S–273SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee CH, Jahng TA, Hyun SJ, Kim KJ, Kim HJ (2016) Expansive laminoplasty versus laminectomy alone versus laminectomy and fusion for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: is there a difference in the clinical outcome and sagittal alignment? Clin Spine Surg 29:E9–E15Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee CK, Shin DA, Yi S, Kim KN, Shin HC, Yoon DH, Ha Y (2016) Correlation between cervical spine sagittal alignment and clinical outcome after cervical laminoplasty for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Neurosurg Spine 24:100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee JJ, Shin DA, Yi S, Kim KN, Yoon DH, Shin HC, Ha Y (2018) Effect of posterior instrumented fusion on three-dimensional volumetric growth of cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a multiple regression analysis. The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society 18:1779–1786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee SE, Chung CK, Jahng TA, Kim HJ (2013) Long-term outcome of laminectomy for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Neurosurg Spine 18:465–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee SH, Son DW, Lee JS, Kim DH, Sung SK, Lee SW, Song GS (2018) Differences in cervical sagittal alignment changes in patients undergoing laminoplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Neurospine 15:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lin S, Zhou F, Sun Y, Chen Z, Zhang F, Pan S (2015) The severity of operative invasion to the posterior muscular-ligament complex influences cervical sagittal balance after open-door laminoplasty. Eur Spine J 24:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu X, Chen Y, Yang H, Li T, Xu B, Chen D (2017) Expansive open-door laminoplasty versus laminectomy and instrumented fusion for cases with cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament and straight lordosis. Eur Spine J 26:1173–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Machino M, Yukawa Y, Hida T, Ito K, Nakashima H, Kanbara S, Morita D, Kato F (2012) Cervical alignment and range of motion after laminoplasty: radiographical data from more than 500 cases with cervical spondylotic myelopathy and a review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:E1243–E1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Manzano GR, Casella G, Wang MY, Vanni S, Levi AD (2012) A prospective, randomized trial comparing expansile cervical laminoplasty and cervical laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy. Neurosurgery 70:264–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Matsumoto M, Chiba K, Toyama Y, Takeshita K, Seichi A, Nakamura K, Arimizu J, Fujibayashi S, Hirabayashi S, Hirano T, Iwasaki M, Kaneoka K, Kawaguchi Y, Ijiri K, Maeda T, Matsuyama Y, Mikami Y, Murakami H, Nagashima H, Nagata K, Nakahara S, Nohara Y, Oka S, Sakamoto K, Saruhashi Y, Sasao Y, Shimizu K, Taguchi T, Takahashi M, Tanaka Y, Tani T, Tokuhashi Y, Uchida K, Yamamoto K, Yamazaki M, Yokoyama T, Yoshida M, Nishiwaki Y (2008) Surgical results and related factors for ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament of the thoracic spine: a multi-institutional retrospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1034–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Matsunaga S, Sakou T, Nakanisi K (1999) Analysis of the cervical spine alignment following laminoplasty and laminectomy. Spinal Cord 37:20–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miyashita T, Ataka H, Tanno T (2013) Spontaneous reduction of a floated ossification of the ligamentum flavum after posterior thoracic decompression (floating method); report of a case (abridged translation of a primary publication). Spine J 13:e7–e9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moon BJ, Kim D, Shin DA, Yi S, Kim KN, Yoon DH, Ha Y (2019) Patterns of short-term and long-term surgical outcomes and prognostic factors for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament between anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion and posterior laminoplasty. Neurosurg Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-018-01069-x
  34. 34.
    Nolan JP Jr, Sherk HH (1988) Biomechanical evaluation of the extensor musculature of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13:9–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ota M, Furuya T, Maki S, Inada T, Kamiya K, Ijima Y, Saito J, Takahashi K, Yamazaki M, Aramomi M, Mannoji C, Koda M (2016) Addition of instrumented fusion after posterior decompression surgery suppresses thickening of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine. J Clin Neurosci 34:162–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roguski M, Benzel EC, Curran JN, Magge SN, Bisson EF, Krishnaney AA, Steinmetz MP, Butler WE, Heary RF, Ghogawala Z (2014) Postoperative cervical sagittal imbalance negatively affects outcomes after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:2070–2077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sakai K, Yoshii T, Hirai T, Arai Y, Shinomiya K, Okawa A (2017) Impact of the surgical treatment for degenerative cervical myelopathy on the preoperative cervical sagittal balance: a review of prospective comparative cohort between anterior decompression with fusion and laminoplasty. Eur Spine J 26:104–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shou F, Li Z, Wang H, Yan C, Liu Q, Xiao C (2015) Prevalence of C5 nerve root palsy after cervical decompressive surgery: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 24:2724–2734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stephens BF, Rhee JM, Neustein TM, Arceo R (2017) Laminoplasty does not lead to worsening axial neck pain in the properly selected patient with cervical myelopathy: a comparison with laminectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42:1844–1850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tang JA, Scheer JK, Smith JS, Deviren V, Bess S, Hart RA, Lafage V, Shaffrey CI, Schwab F, Ames CP (2015) The impact of standing regional cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes in posterior cervical fusion surgery. Neurosurgery 76(Suppl 1):S14–S21 discussion S21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wang M, Luo XJ, Deng QX, Li JH, Wang N (2016) Prevalence of axial symptoms after posterior cervical decompression: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 25:2302–2310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wu JC, Chen YC, Huang WC (2018) Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in cervical spine: prevalence, management, and prognosis. Neurospine 15:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yamazaki M, Mochizuki M, Ikeda Y, Sodeyama T, Okawa A, Koda M, Moriya H (2006) Clinical results of surgery for thoracic myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: operative indication of posterior decompression with instrumented fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1452–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhang JT, Li JQ, Niu RJ, Liu Z, Tong T, Shen Y (2017) Predictors of cervical lordosis loss after laminoplasty in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J 26:1205–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurosurgery, Spine and Spinal Cord InstituteYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Neurosurgery, Sanggye Paik HospitalInje University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations