Clinical comparison between simple laminectomy and laminectomy plus posterior instrumentation in surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy
- 126 Downloads
Posterior stabilization in patients treated with laminectomy for spondylotic cervical myelopathy is still a debate. Despite both being reported in literature by several authors, some controversies still exist. The aim of this study is to compare clinical and radiological outcomes in patients treated with laminectomy or laminectomy with posterior stabilization.
Material and methods
We retrospectively evaluated 42 patients affected by cervical myelopathy (mean age 70.43 ± 5.03 years), 19 treated with laminectomy (group A) and 23 with laminectomy and posterior instrumentation (group B). Neurological status was assessed with Nurick scale, pain with VAS and radiological parameters with C2–C7 SVA, T1 slope and C2–C7 lordosis, clinical function with modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (JOA). Also, surgery time and blood loss were recorded. Student’s t test was used for continuous variables, while Kruskal–Wallis test was used for categorical values.
No differences were found in postoperative Nurick scale (p = 0.587), VAS (p = 0.62), mJOA (p = 0.197) and T1 slope (p = 0.559), while laminectomy with fusion showed better postoperative cervical lordosis (p = 0.007) and C2–C7 SVA (p < 0.00001), but higher blood loss (p < 0.00001) and surgical time (p < 0.00001). Both groups showed better Nurick scale (p = 0.00017 for group A and p = 0.00081 for group B), VAS (p = 0.02 for group A and p = 0.046 for group B) and mJOA (p < 0.00001 for both groups) than preoperative values.
Both treatments are a valuable choice, offering some benefits and disadvantages against each other. Each procedure must be carefully evaluated on the basis of patients’ general status, preoperative pain, signs of instability and potential benefits from cervical alignment correction.
KeywordsSpondylotic cervical myelopathy Elderly Laminectomy Posterior fusion Lateral mass screw
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare they have no conflict of interest.
- 5.Singrakhia MD, Malewar NR, Singrakhia SM, Deshmukh SS (2017) Cervical laminectomy with lateral mass screw fixation in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: neurological and sagittal alignment outcome: do we need lateral mass screws at each segment? Indian J Orthop 51:658–665. https://doi.org/10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_266_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Della Pepa GM, Roselli R, La Rocca G et al (2014) Laminoplasty is better of laminectomy in cervical stenotic myelopathy: myth or truth? Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 18:50–54Google Scholar
- 11.Kode S, Kallemeyn NA, Smucker JD et al (2014) The effect of multi-level laminoplasty and laminectomy on the biomechanics of the cervical spine: a finite element study. Iowa Orthop J 34:150–157Google Scholar
- 14.Association JO (1994) Scoring system for cervical myelopathy. Nippon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 68:490–503Google Scholar
- 25.Ratliff JK, Cooper PR (2003) Cervical laminoplasty: a critical review. J Neurosurg 98:230–238Google Scholar
- 28.Yamazaki T, Yanaka K, Sato H et al (2003) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical results and factors affecting outcome with special reference to age differences. Neurosurgery 52:122–126 (discussion 126) Google Scholar
- 36.Law MD, Bernhardt M, White AA et al (1993) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a review of surgical indications and decision making. Yale J Biol Med 66:165–177Google Scholar