Advertisement

Microsurgical Posterior Approaches to the Cervical Spine

  • J. C. Young
  • P. H. Young

Abstract

Decompressive approaches posteriorly to the cervical spine include:
  1. 1.

    Posterior laminectomy (unilateral or bilateral)

     
  2. 2.

    Multi-level, bilateral laminectomy and partial facetectomy

     
  3. 3.

    Laminoplasty

     
  4. 4.

    Posterior microlaminotomy-foraminotomy (keyhole).

     

Keywords

Cervical Spine Nerve Root Spinal Canal Facet Joint Paraspinous Muscle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aldrich F (1990) Posterolateral microdiscectomy for cervical monoradiculopathy caused by posterolateral soft cervical disc sequestration. J Neurosurg72: 370–377Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alsharif H, Ezzat SH, Hay A, Motty NA, Malek SA (1979) The results of surgical treatment of spondylotic radiculomyelopathy with complete cervical laminectomy and posterior foramen magnum decompression. Acta Neurochir (Wein) 48: 83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bishara SN (1971) The posterior operation in the treatment of cervical spondylosis with myelopathy: a long term follow-up study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 34: 393–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cusick JF, Ackmann JJ, Larson J (1977) Mechanical and physiological effects of dentatotomy. J Neurosurg 46: 767–775PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dalle-Ore G, Vivenza C (1988) Cervical spondylotic myelopathies - long term results of surgical treatment. In: Grote W et al. (eds) Advances in neurosurgery 8. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ehni G (1984) Cervical arthrosis diseases of the cervical motion segments. Yearbook Medical Publishers, Chicago.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Epstein JA, Janin T (1983) Management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy by the posterior approach. In: z (ed) The cervical spine, 1st edn. JB Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 402–410Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Epstein J, Carras R, Levine LS, et al, (1969) Importance of removing osteophytes as part of the surgical treatment of myelo radiculopathy in cervical spondylosis. J Neurosurg 30: 219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Epstein JA, Janin Y, Carras R, et al, (1982) A comparative study of the treatment of cervical spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Experience with 5o cases treated by means of extensive laminectomy, foraminotomy and excision of osteophytes during the past ten years. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 61: 89–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fager CA (1973) Results of adequate posterior decompression in the relief of spondylotic cervical myelopathy. J Neurosurg 38: 684–692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fager CA(1976) Management of cervical disc lesions and spondylosis by posterior approaches. Clin Neurosurg 24:488–507Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fager CA (1978) Posterior surgical tactics for the neurological symptoms of cervical disc and spondylitic lesions. Clin Neurosurg 25: 218–244PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fox JL, Byrd EB, McCullough DC (1972) Results of cervical laminectomy with dural graft for severe spondylosis with narrow canal. Acta Latinoam 18: 90–95Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guidetti B, Fortuna A (1969) Long term results of surgical treatment of myelopathy due to cervical spondylosis. J Neurosurg 30: 714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haft H, Shenkin HA (1963) Surgical end results of cervical ridge and disc problems. JAMA 186:312–315Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henderson CM, Hennessy RG, Shuey HM, Shackelford EG (1983) Posterolateral foraminotomy as an exclusive operative technique for cervical radiculopathy. A review of 846 consecutively operated cases. Neurosurgery 13: 504–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hudgins WR (z) Posterior micro-operative treatments of cervical disc disease. In: Youmans, (ed). Neurological surgery, 3rd edn. PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hukuda S, Mochizuki T, Ogata M, Shichikawa K, Shimomura Y(1985) Operations for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a comparison of the results of anterior and posterior procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 609–615Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hukuda S, Ogata M, Mochizuki T, Shichikawa K (1988) Laminectomy versus laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy: brief report. J Bone Joint Surg Br 7013: 325–326Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jenkins DHR (1973) Extensive cervical laminectomy: longterm results. Br J Surg 60: 852PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kahn EA (1947) The role of the dentate ligaments in spinal cord compression in the syndrome of lateral sclerosis. J Neurosurg 4: 191–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Murphy F, Simmons JCH, Brunson B (1973) Surgical treatment of laterally ruptured cervical disc. Review of 648 cases 1936–1972. J Neurosurg 38: 679–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Northfield DWC (1955) Diagnosis and treatment of myelopathy due to cervical spondylosis. BMJ 2: 1474–1477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nurick S (1971) The natural history and results of surgical treatment of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 95: 101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Odom GL, Finney W, Woodhall B (1958) Cervical disk lesion. JAMA 166: 23–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Piepgras DG (1977) Posterior decompression for myelopathy due to cervical spondylosis. Laminectomy alone versus laminectomy with dentate ligament section. Clin Neurosurg 24: 509–515Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Raynor RB (1983) Anterior or posterior approach to the cervical spine: an anatomical and radiographic evaluation and comparison. Neurosurgery 12: 7–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Raynor RB, Puch J. Shapiro I (1985) Cervical facetectomy and its effect on spine strength. J Neurosurg 63: 278–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Raynor RB, Puch J, Shapiro I (1987) Cervical facetectomy and its effect on stability. In: z (ed) Cervical spine I. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York-, pp 51–54Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rogers L (1961) The treatment of spondylotic myelopathy by mobilization of the cervical cord into an enlarged spinal canal. J Neurosurg 18: 490–492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rothman RH, Simeone FA (1982) The spine, vol.1, 2nd edn. WB Saunders, Philadelphia:Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schneider RC (1982) Treatment of cervical spine disease. In: Schneider RC, Kahn EA, Crosby EC, Taren JA (eds) Correlative neurosurgery, 3rd edn. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield,pp 1094–1174Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scoville WB (1961) Cervical spondylosis treated by bilateral facetectomy and laminectomy. J Neurosurg18: 423–428Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Scoville WB, Whitcomb BB, McLauran R (1951) The cervical ruptured disc report of 115 operative cases. Trans Am Neurol Assoc 76: 222Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Scoville WB, Dohrmann GT, Corkhill G (1976) Late results of cervical disc surgery. J Neurosurg 45: 203–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sunder-Plassmann M, Farenbauer F (1989) Long-term follow-up after surgery for spondylogenous myelopathy. In: Grote W, et al.,(eds). Advances in neurosurgery 8. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York,pp 83–85zGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tezuka A, Yamada K, Ikata, T (1976) Surgical results of cervical spondylotic radiculomyelopathy observed for more than five years. Tokushim J Exp Med 23: 9Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Williams RW (1983) Microcervical foraminotomy: a surgical alternative for intractable radicular pain. Spine 8: 708–716PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. C. Young
  • P. H. Young

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations