Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Posterior Decompression for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Laminectomy, Laminectomy and Fusion or Laminoplasty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evidence for Neurosurgery

  • 434 Accesses

Abstract

Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) represents a spectrum of chronic atraumatic spinal cord injury that occurs secondary to compression from disc spondylosis, hypertrophy of the ligamentum flavum, or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), etc. [1]. While surgical management has been shown to arrest the progressive deterioration and provide neurological and functional improvement, the selection of surgical procedures pertaining to specific cases is subject to much controversy [2–4]. While the subject of anterior versus posterior spinal decompression has been repeatedly debated amongst the experts, this chapter will focus on posterior surgical options and anterior alternatives will not be further elaborated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, et al. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: epidemiology, genetics, and pathogenesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:E675–93.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Badhiwala JH, Wilson JR. The natural history of degenerative cervical myelopathy. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2018;29:21–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Kopjar B, et al. Efficacy and safety of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results of the AOSpine North America prospective multi-center study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:1651–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lawrence BD, Jacobs WB, Norvell DC, et al. Anterior versus posterior approach for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:S173–82.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Geck MJ, Eismont FJ. Surgical options for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Orthop Clin North Am. 2002;33:329–48.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Carol MP, Ducker TB. Cervical spondylitic myelopathies: surgical treatment. J Spinal Disord. 1988;1:59–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Epstein JA. The surgical management of cervical spinal stenosis, spondylosis, and myeloradiculopathy by means of the posterior approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988;13:864–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kaptain GJ, Simmons NE, Replogle RE, et al. Incidence and outcome of kyphotic deformity following laminectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg. 2000;93:199–204.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hansen-Schwartz J, Kruse-Larsen C, Nielsen CJ. Follow-up after cervical laminectomy, with special reference to instability and deformity. Br J Neurosurg. 2003;17:301–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kato Y, Iwasaki M, Fuji T, et al. Long-term follow-up results of laminectomy for cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Neurosurg. 1998;89:217–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yonenobu K, Okada K, Fuji T, et al. Causes of neurologic deterioration following surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1986;11:818–23.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. An HS, Coppes MA. Posterior cervical fixation for fracture and degenerative disc disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;335:101–11.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nazarian SM, Louis RP. Posterior internal fixation with screw plates in traumatic lesions of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16:S64–71.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jeanneret B, Magerl F, Ward EH, et al. Posterior stabilization of the cervical spine with hook plates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16:S56–63.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Anderson PA, Henley MB, Grady MS, et al. Posterior cervical arthrodesis with AO reconstruction plates and bone graft. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16:S72–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ebraheim NA, Rupp RE, Savolaine ER, et al. Posterior plating of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord. 1995;8:111–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Benzel EC, Kesterson L. Posterior cervical interspinous compression wiring and fusion for mid to low cervical spinal injuries. J Neurosurg. 1989;70:893–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. al Baz MO, Mathur N. Modified technique of tension band wiring in flexion injuries of the middle and lower cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20:1241–4.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Deen HG, Nottmeier EW, Reimer R. Early complications of posterior rod-screw fixation of the cervical and upper thoracic spine. Neurosurgery. 2006;59:1062–7; discussion 7-8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Deen HG, Birch BD, Wharen RE, et al. Lateral mass screw-rod fixation of the cervical spine: a prospective clinical series with 1-year follow-up. Spine J. 2003;3:489–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Blizzard DJ, Caputo AM, Sheets CZ, et al. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of spondylotic cervical myelopathy: short-term follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2017;26:85–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Heller JG, Edwards ICC, Murakami H, et al. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched cohort analysis. Spine. 2001;26:1330–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yang L, Gu Y, Shi J, et al. Modified plate-only open-door laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical stenotic myelopathy. Orthopedics. 2013;36:e79–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kawai S, Sunago K, Doi K, et al. Cervical laminoplasty (Hattori’s method). Procedure and follow-up results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988;13:1245–50.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hirabayashi K, Satomi K. Operative procedure and results of expansive open-door laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988;13:870–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, et al. Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983;8:693–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Tomita K, Kawahara N, Toribatake Y, et al. Expansive midline T-saw laminoplasty (modified spinous process-splitting) for the management of cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23:32–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hukuda S, Mochizuki T, Ogata M, et al. Operations for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. A comparison of the results of anterior and posterior procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1985;67:609–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rhee JM, Basra S. Posterior surgery for cervical myelopathy: laminectomy, laminectomy with fusion, and laminoplasty. Asian Spine J. 2008;2:114–26.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Lee JS, Son DW, Lee SH, et al. The predictable factors of the postoperative kyphotic change of sagittal alignment of the cervical spine after the laminoplasty. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2017;60:577–83.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Suk KS, Kim KT, Lee JH, et al. Sagittal alignment of the cervical spine after the laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:E656–60.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Dugoni DE, Mancarella C, Landi A, et al. Post laminoplasty cervical kyphosis-case report. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2014;5:853–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Ellwitz J, Roberto R, Gupta M, et al. Patient and surgeon factors associated with postoperative kyphosis after laminoplasty. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2011;2:53–4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Hosono N, Yonenobu K, Ono K. Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty. A noticeable complication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21:1969–73.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Ishihara H, et al. Axial symptoms after en bloc cervical laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord. 1999;12:392–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Shiraishi T, Fukuda K, Yato Y, et al. Results of skip laminectomy-minimum 2-year follow-up study compared with open-door laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:2667–72.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Yukawa Y, Kato F, Ito K, et al. Laminoplasty and skip laminectomy for cervical compressive myelopathy: range of motion, postoperative neck pain, and surgical outcomes in a randomized prospective study. Spine. 2007;32:1980–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Shiraishi T. Skip laminectomy--a new treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy, preserving bilateral muscular attachments to the spinous processes: a preliminary report. Spine J. 2002;2:108–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Matsunaga S, Sakou T, Nakanisi K. Analysis of the cervical spine alignment following laminoplasty and laminectomy. Spinal Cord. 1999;37:20–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ishihara A. Roentgenographic studies on the normal pattern of the cervical curvature. Nihon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi. 1968;42:1033–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A:1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  42. West S, King V, Carey TS, et al. Systems to rate the strength of Scientific Evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47 (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute–University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0011). AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:401–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:719–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Zhang Y, Coello PA, Guyatt GH, et al. GRADE guidelines: 20. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-inconsistency, imprecision, and other domains. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.011.

  47. Higgins JPT, Cochrane GS. Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration 2011. http://handbook.cochrane.org.

  48. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Comprehensive meta-analysis version 3. Englewood: Biostat; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Du W, Wang L, Shen Y, et al. Long-term impacts of different posterior operations on curvature, neurological recovery and axial symptoms for multilevel cervical degenerative myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:1594–602.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Lee CH, Jahng TA, Hyun SJ, et al. Expansive laminoplasty versus laminectomy alone versus laminectomy and fusion for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2016;29:E9–E15.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Chang H, Kim C, Choi BW. Selective laminectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a comparative analysis with laminoplasty technique. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137:611–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Nurboja B, Kachramanoglou C, Choi D. Cervical laminectomy vs laminoplasty: is there a difference in outcome and postoperative pain. Neurosurgery. 2012;70:965–70; discussion 70

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Fehlings MG, Santaguida C, Tetreault L, et al. Laminectomy and fusion versus laminoplasty for the treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy: results from the AOSpine North America and international prospective multicenter studies. Spine J. 2017;17:102–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Highsmith JM, Dhall SS, Haid RW Jr, et al. Treatment of cervical stenotic myelopathy: a cost and outcome comparison of laminoplasty versus laminectomy and lateral mass fusion - clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14:619–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Lau D, Winkler EA, Than KD, et al. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with posterior spinal fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: influence of cervical alignment on outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27:508–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Miyamoto H, Maeno K, Uno K, et al. Outcomes of surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy accompanying local kyphosis (comparison between laminoplasty alone and posterior reconstruction surgery using the screw-rod system). Eur Spine J. 2014;23:341–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Stephens BF, Rhee JM, Neustein TM, et al. Laminoplasty does not lead to worsening axial neck pain in the properly selected patient with cervical myelopathy. Spine. 2017;42:1844–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Woods BI, Hohl J, Lee J, et al. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:688–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Yuan W, Zhu Y, Liu X, et al. Postoperative three-dimensional cervical range of motion and neurological outcomes in patients with cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: cervical laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015;134:17–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Yehya A. The clinical outcome of lateral mass fixation after decompressive laminectomy in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Alex J Med. 2015;51:153–9.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Della Pepa GM, Roselli R, La Rocca G, et al. Laminoplasty is better of laminectomy in cervical stenotic myelopathy: myth or truth? Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2014;18:50–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Lee SH, Suk KS, Kang KC, et al. Outcomes and related factors of C5 palsy following cervical laminectomy with instrumented fusion compared with laminoplasty. Spine. 2016;41:E574–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Fehlings MG, Tetreault LA, Riew KD, et al. A clinical practice guideline for the management of degenerative cervical myelopathy: introduction, rationale, and scope. Global Spine J. 2017;7:21S–7S.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Tetreault LA, Karadimas S, Wilson JR, et al. The natural history of degenerative cervical myelopathy and the rate of hospitalization following spinal cord injury: an updated systematic review. Global Spine J. 2017;7:28S–34S.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Rhee J, Tetreault LA, Chapman JR, et al. Nonoperative versus operative management for the treatment degenerative cervical myelopathy: an updated systematic review. Global Spine J. 2017;7:35S–41S.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Fehlings MG, Tetreault LA, Kurpad S, et al. Change in functional impairment, disability, and quality of life following operative treatment for degenerative cervical myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Spine J. 2017;7:53S–69S.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Tetreault LA, Rhee J, Prather H, et al. Change in function, pain, and quality of life following structured nonoperative treatment in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy: a systematic review. Global Spine J. 2017;7:42S–52S.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Fehlings MG, Tetreault LA, Riew KD, et al. A clinical practice guideline for the management of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy: recommendations for patients with mild, moderate, and severe disease and nonmyelopathic patients with evidence of cord compression. Global Spine J. 2017;7:70S–83S.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Huang RC, Girardi FP, Poynton AR, et al. Treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myeloradiculopathy with posterior decompression and fusion with lateral mass plate fixation and local bone graft. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16:123–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Yamanaka K, Tachibana T, Moriyama T, et al. C-5 palsy after cervical laminoplasty with instrumented posterior fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20:1–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Takemitsu M, Cheung KM, Wong YW, et al. C5 nerve root palsy after cervical laminoplasty and posterior fusion with instrumentation. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21:267–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Fan Jiang & Michael G. Fehlings

  2. Division of Genetics and Development, Krembil Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Hiroyuki Katoh & Kazuya Yokota

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Surgical Science, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Kanagawa, Japan

    Hiroyuki Katoh

  4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukoka, Japan

    Kazuya Yokota

  5. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Michael G. Fehlings

Authors
  1. Fan Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hiroyuki Katoh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kazuya Yokota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael G. Fehlings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael G. Fehlings .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Ronald H. M. A. Bartels

  2. Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Maroeska M. Rovers

  3. Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Gert P. Westert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Jiang, F., Katoh, H., Yokota, K., Fehlings, M.G. (2019). Posterior Decompression for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Laminectomy, Laminectomy and Fusion or Laminoplasty. In: Bartels, R., Rovers, M., Westert, G. (eds) Evidence for Neurosurgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16323-5_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16323-5_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16322-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16323-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation