Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 1393–1400 | Cite as

Postoperative K-line conversion from negative to positive is independently associated with a better surgical outcome after posterior decompression with instrumented fusion for K-line negative cervical ossification of the posterior ligament

  • Masao Koda
  • Takeo Furuya
  • Junya Saito
  • Yasushi Ijima
  • Mitsuhiro Kitamura
  • Seiji Ohtori
  • Sumihisa Orita
  • Kazuhide Inage
  • Tetsuya Abe
  • Hiroshi Noguchi
  • Toru Funayama
  • Hiroshi Kumagai
  • Kosei Miura
  • Katsuya Nagashima
  • Masashi Yamazaki
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Addition of posterior instrumented fusion to laminoplasty (posterior decompression with instrumented fusion: PDF) can improve the surgical outcome of patients with K-line (−) cervical ossification of the longitudinal ligament (OPLL) compared with laminoplasty alone. We sought to elucidate the factors that are significantly associated with a better outcome after PDF for K-line (−) OPLL.

Methods

The present study included 38 patients who underwent PDF for K-line (−) OPLL and were followed up for at least 1 year after surgery. Clinical outcome was assessed using Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores for cervical myelopathy and the recovery rate was calculated. Patients who belonged to the upper quartile of all the patients according to rank order of the JOA score recovery rate were considered to have a good outcome. The correlations between good outcome, patient factors and imaging assessments were analyzed statistically.

Results

Univariate analyses showed that postoperative conversion of K-line from (−) to (+) (p = 0.004), no increase in the sagittal vertical axis from the center of gravity of the head to C7 (p = 0.07), and a lower grade of preoperative intramedullary T2-signal intensity (p = 0.03) were candidates for the association. Stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed that postoperative K-line conversion from (−) to (+) is an independent factor that is significantly associated with a better surgical outcome (p = 0.04).

Conclusion

Postoperative K-line conversion from (−) to (+) is a factor independently associated with a better surgical outcome.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary material.

Keywords

OPLL Cervical spine Fusion surgery 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All the co-authors have no conflict of interest in the present study.

Supplementary material

586_2018_5505_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (143 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 143 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Matsumoto M, Chiba K, Toyama Y (2012) Surgical treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament and its outcomes: posterior surgery by laminoplasty. Spine 37:E303–E308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    An HS, Al-Shihabi L, Kurd M (2014) Surgical treatment for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 22:420–429.  https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-22-07-420 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aita I, Hayashi K, Wadano Y, Yabuki T (1998) Posterior movement and enlargement of the spinal cord after cervical laminoplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Br 80:33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sodeyama T, Goto S, Mochizuki M et al (1999) Effect of decompression enlargement laminoplasty for posterior shifting of the spinal cord. Spine 24:1527–1531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sakai K, Okawa A, Takahashi M et al (2012) Five-year follow-up evaluation of surgical treatment for cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a prospective comparative study of anterior decompression and fusion with floating method versus laminoplasty. Spine 37:367–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nishida N, Kanchiku T, Kato Y et al (2014) Biomechanical analysis of cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: effects of posterior decompression and kyphosis following decompression. Exp Ther Med 7:1095–1099CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iwasaki M, Okuda S, Miyauchi A et al (2007) Surgical strategy for cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: part 1: clinical results and limitations of laminoplasty. Spine 32:647–653CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fujimori T, Iwasaki M, Okuda S et al (2014) Long-term results of cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament with an occupying ratio of 60% or more. Spine 39:58–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fujiyoshi T, Yamazaki M, Kawabe J et al (2008) A new concept for making decisions regarding the surgical approach for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: the K-line. Spine 33:E990–E993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fujiyoshi T, Yamazaki M, Okawa A et al (2011) Outcome of posterior decompression surgery for cervical OPLL patients of the K-line (−) group: laminoplasty versus posterior decompression with instrumented fusion. J Spine Res 2:231–235Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koda M, Mochizuki M, Konishi H et al (2016) 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. Eur Spine J 25:2294–2301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Japanese Orthopaedic Association (1994) Scoring system for cervical myelopathy. Nippon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 68:490–503 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hirabayashi K, Toyama Y (1997) Choice of surgical procedure for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligaments. In: Yonenobu K, Sakou T, Ono K (eds) ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Springer-Verlag, Tokyo, pp 135–142Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tsuyama N (1984) Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 184:71–84Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saito J, Maki S, Kamiya K et al (2016) Outcome of posterior decompression with instrumented fusion surgery for K-line (−) cervical ossification of the longitudinal ligament. J Clin Neurosci 32:57–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yukawa Y, Kato F, Yoshihara H et al (2007) MR T2 image classification in cervical compression myelopathy: predictor of surgical outcomes. Spine 32:1675–1678CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yoshii T, Sakai K, Hirai T et al (2016) Anterior decompression with fusion versus posterior decompression with fusion for massive cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament with a ≥ 50% canal occupying ratio: a multicenter retrospective study. Spine J 16:1351–1357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu X, Chen Y, Yang H et al (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 26:1173–1180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Denaro V, Longo UG, Berton A et al (2015) Favourable outcome of posterior decompression and stabilization in lordosis for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: the spinal cord “back shift” concept. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 7):826–831.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4298-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Takenaka S, Nagamoto Y, Aono H, Kaito T, Hosono N (2016) Differences in the time of onset of postoperative upper limb palsy among surgical procedures: a meta-analysis. Spine J 16:1486–1499.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.09.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Katsumi K, Yamazaki A, Watanabe K et al (2012) Can prophylactic bilateral C4/C5 foraminotomy prevent postoperative C5 palsy after open-door laminoplasty? a prospective study. Spine 37:748–754CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wu FL, Sun Y, Pan SF et al (2014) Risk factors associated with upper extremity palsy after expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy. Spine J 14:909–915CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kurakawa T, Miyamoto H, Kaneyama S et al (2016) C5 nerve palsy after posterior reconstruction surgery: predictive risk factors of the incidence and critical range of correction for kyphosis. Eur Spine J 25:2060–2067CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masao Koda
    • 1
  • Takeo Furuya
    • 2
  • Junya Saito
    • 2
  • Yasushi Ijima
    • 2
  • Mitsuhiro Kitamura
    • 2
  • Seiji Ohtori
    • 2
  • Sumihisa Orita
    • 2
  • Kazuhide Inage
    • 2
  • Tetsuya Abe
    • 1
  • Hiroshi Noguchi
    • 1
  • Toru Funayama
    • 1
  • Hiroshi Kumagai
    • 1
  • Kosei Miura
    • 1
  • Katsuya Nagashima
    • 1
  • Masashi Yamazaki
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Orthopedic SurgeryUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Chiba University Graduate School of MedicineChibaJapan

Personalised recommendations