A Comparison of Implants Used in Open-Door Laminoplasty: Structural Rib Allografts Versus Metallic Miniplates

Multilevel Laminoplasty for CSM: Is C3 Laminectomy Better Than C3 Laminoplasty at the Superior Vertebra?

INTRODUCTION

In a multilevel cervical laminoplasty operation for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), a partial or complete C3 laminectomy may be performed at the upper level instead of a C3 plated laminoplasty. It is unknown whether C3 technique above the laminoplasty affects loss of cervical lordosis or range of motion.

METHODS

Patients undergoing multilevel laminoplasty of the cervical spine (C3-C6/C7) at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on surgical technique at C3: C3-C6/C7 plated laminoplasty ("C3 laminoplasty only", N = 61), C3 partial or complete laminectomy, plus C4-C6/C7 plated laminoplasty (N = 39). All patients had at least 1-year postoperative X-ray treatment.

RESULTS

Of 100 total patients, C3 laminoplasty and C3 laminectomy were equivalent in all demographic data, except for age (66.4 vs. 59.4 years, p = 0.012). None of the preoperative radiographic parameters differed between the C3 laminoplasty and C3 laminectomy cohorts: cervical lordosis (13.1° vs. 11.1°, p = 0.259), T1 slope (32.9° vs. 29.2°, p = 0.072), T1 slope-cervical lordosis (19.8° vs. 18.6°, p = 0.485), or cervical sagittal vertical axis (3.1 cm vs. 2.7 cm, p = 0.193). None of the postoperative radiographic parameters differed between the C3 laminoplasty and C3 laminectomy cohorts: cervical lordosis (9.4° vs. 11.2°, p = 0.369), T1 slope-cervical lordosis (21.7° vs. 18.1°, p = 0.126), to cervical sagittal vertical axis (3.3 cm vs. 3.6 cm, p = 0.479). In the total cohort, 31% had loss of cervical lordosis >5°. Loss of lordosis reached 5-10° (mild change) in 13% of patients and >10° (moderate change) in 18% of patients. C3 laminoplasty and C3 laminectomy cohorts did not differ with respect to no change (<5°: 65.6% vs. 74.3%, respectively), mild change (5-10°: 14.8% vs. 10.3%), and moderate change (>10°: 19.7% vs. 15.4%) in cervical lordosis, p = 0.644. When controlling for age, ordinal regression showed that surgical technique at C3 did not increase the odds of postoperative loss of cervical lordosis. C3 laminectomy versus C3 laminoplasty did not differ in the postoperative range of motion on cervical flexion-extension X-rays (23.9° vs. 21.7°, p = 0.451, N = 91).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in postoperative loss of cervical lordosis or postoperative range of motion in patients who underwent either C3-C6/C7 plated laminoplasty or C3 laminectomy plus C4-C6/C7 plated laminoplasty.

Technical Nuances of Cervical Laminoplasty: Supplemental Manuscript to Operative Video

STUDY DESIGN

Operative video and supplemental manuscript.

OBJECTIVE

The technical nuances of open-door laminoplasty are described. Potential complications of open-door laminoplasty and strategies for their minimization are discussed.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Cervical laminoplasty may be indicated in patients with cervical myelopathy due to cervical stenosis in the setting of spondylosis, ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, congenital stenosis, and traumatic central cord syndrome.

METHODS

A video illustrates the nuances of the surgical technique for cervical laminoplasty.

RESULTS

Myelopathic patients with preserved lordotic sagittal profile, central stenosis involving several levels, and minimal to no axial neck pain are ideal candidates for laminoplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical laminoplasty provides more stability compared with laminectomy alone and a better range of motion compared with laminectomy with posterior spinal fusion. Understanding the nuances of laminoplasty may help surgeons to avoid complications.