Changes in canal diameter and cervical lordosis in patients who underwent en-bloc laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical spinal stenosis

Year 2024, Volume: 10 Issue: 5, 439 - 447, 04.09.2024

Mehmet Meral , Rahmi Kemal Koç

https://doi.org/10.18621/eurj.1453664

Abstract

Objective: Cervical spinal canal-expanding laminoplasty has been recognized as an alternative to cervical laminectomy, especially in multilevel cervical myelopathy due to spinal stenosis. This study aimed to determine the effects of En-block laminoplasty on cervical sagittal balance, cervical spine biomechanics and whether it is sufficient to preserve cervical canal diameter and lordosis and whether it causes additional lordosis or kyphosis in cases of cervical narrow spinal canal.

Methods: Thirty-eight cervical narrow canal patients operated on between 2008 and 2020 were retrospectively evaluated and the results of 24 laminoplasty patients were evaluated. Spinal tomography results for the evaluation of canal diameter changes and X-ray results for cervical sagittal balance evaluation were compared with each other in the early postoperative period and 3 years later. For cervical lordosis assessment, Cobb and C2-C7sagital vertical axis measurements were performed using the PACS system.

Results: Fifteen patients were male and 9 were female. The mean age was 65.55±11.56 years (min-max: 58-84) and the mean follow-up period was three years. Two patients had one level stenosis, 4 had two levels, 7 had three levels, and 11 had four or more levels. Radiculopathy was present in 17 patients (71.8%) and myelopathy in 7 patients (29.1%). There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of myelopathy/radiculopathy between genders. When all distances were considered, no statistical difference was observed in the early postoperative period (median ten days) and late postoperative period (median 3 years) in terms of canal diameters. No measurement value could be obtained for any level diagnosed as restenosis or requiring reoperation. Loss of lordosis was measured in only one patient. Otherwise, lordosis was preserved in all cases at late conversion.

Conclusions: The results of our study showed that en-block laminoplasty after the cervical narrow spinal canal was sufficient to maintain the cervical canal diameter in the long term with appropriate patient and surgical technique.

Keywords

Cervical spinal stenosis, en-bloc laminoplasty, cervical canal diameter, cervical lordosis, laminoplasty

References

• 1. Collias Roberts PR. Posterior surgical exposures for cervical disc herniation and spondylotic myelopathy. In: Operative neurosurgical techniques. Indications, methods, and results. Eds: Schmiedek HH. WB Saunders: Philadelphia. 1995: pp. 1805-1806.
• 2. Benzel EC, Lancon J, Kesterson L, Hadden T. Cervical laminectomy and dentate ligament section for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord. 1991;4(3):286-295. doi: 10.1097/00002517-199109000-00005.
• 3. Nurick S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain. 1972;95(1):87-100. doi: 10.1093/brain/95.1.87.
• 4. Nouri A, Martin AR, Tetreault L, et al. MRI Analysis of the Combined Prospectively Collected AOSpine North America and International Data: The Prevalence and Spectrum of Pathologies in a Global Cohort of Patients With Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(14):1058-1067. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001981.
• 5. Dagi TF, Tarkington MA, Leech JJ. Tandem lumbar and cervical spinal stenosis. Natural history, prognostic indices, and results after surgical decompression. J Neurosurg. 1987;66(6):842-849. doi: 10.3171/jns.1987.66.6.0842.
• 6. Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, Suzuki N, Satomi K, Ishii Y. Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983t;8(7):693-699. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198310000-00003.
• 7. Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, Maruyama T, Wakano K. Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1981;6(4):354-364. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198107000-00005.
• 8. Hukuda S, Mochizuki T, Ogata M, Shichikawa K, Shimomura Y. Operations for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. A comparison of the results of anterior and posterior procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1985;67(4):609-615. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.67B4.4030860.
• 9. Hirabayashi K, Toyama Y, Chiba K. Expansive laminoplasty for myelopathy in ossification of the longitudinal ligament. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;(359):35-48. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199902000-00005.
• 10. Tumturk A, Kucuk A, Menku A, Koc RK. En Bloc Cervical Laminoplasty While Preserving the Posterior Structure with Arcocristectomy in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy. Turk Neurosurg. 2017;27(5):790-796. doi: 10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.17440-16.0.
• 11. Sakaura H, Hosono N, Mukai Y, Oshima K, Iwasaki M, Yoshikawa H. Preservation of the nuchal ligament plays an important role in preventing unfavorable radiologic changes after laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(5):338-343. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181453de4.
• 12. Ünsal ÜÜ, Şentürk S, Güvenç Y, Yaman O. [Cervical spine coronal – sagittal balance and parameteers]. Türk Nöroşir Derg. 2022;32(3):366-372. [Article in Turkish]
• 13. Herkowitz HN. A comparison of anterior cervical fusion, cervical laminectomy, and cervical laminoplasty for the surgical management of multiple-level spondylotic radiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988;13(7):774-780. doi:10.1097/00007632-198807000-00011.
• 14. Oyama M, Hattori S, Moriwaki N. [Trial of one method of cervical laminectomy]. Chubu-Seisaishi.1973;16:792-794. [Article in Japanese]
• 15. Hosono N, Yonenobu K, Ono K. Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty. A noticeable complication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(17):1969-1973. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199609010-00005.
• 16. Kaner T, Sasani M, Oktenoğlu T, Ozer AF. Clinical outcomes following cervical laminoplasty for 19 patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Turk Neurosurg. 2009;19(2):121-126.
• 17. Tanaka N, Nakanishi K, Fujiwara Y, Kamei N, Ochi M. Postoperative segmental C5 palsy after cervical laminoplasty may occur without intraoperative nerve injury: a prospective study with transcranial electric motor-evoked potentials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(26):3013-3017. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000250303.17840.96.
• 18. Wang JM, Roh KJ, Kim DJ, Kim DW. A new method of stabilising the elevated laminae in open-door laminoplasty using an anchor system. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(6):1005-1008. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.80b6.8966.
• 19. Herkowitz HN. Surgical management of cervical disc disease: open-door laminoplasty. Semin Spine Surg 1989;1(4): 245-253.
• 20. Ünal M, Kotil K. Anterior approaches in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Definition/Technique/Patient Selection. Degenerative Diseases of the Cervical and Thoracic Spine, Ankara: TND Spinal and Peripheral Nerve Surgery Teaching and Training Group Publications, Chapter 17, 2017: pp. 151-158.
• 21. Yang SC, Niu CC, Chen WJ, Wu CH, Yu SW. Open-door laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: good outcome in 12 patients using suture anchor fixation. Acta Orthop. 2008;79(1):62-66. doi: 10.1080/17453670710014770.
• 22. Miyata M, Neo M, Fujibayashi S, Takemoto M, Nakamura T. Double-door cervical laminoplasty with the use of suture anchors: technical note. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(8):575-578. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31815cb1ba.
• 23. Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Troyanovich SJ, Janik TJ, Holland B. Cobb method or Harrison posterior tangent method: which to choose for lateral cervical radiographic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(16):2072-2078. doi:10.1097/00007632-200008150-00011.
• 24. Weinberg DS, Rhee JM. Cervical laminoplasty: indication, technique, complications. J Spine Surg. 2020;6(1):290-301. doi: 10.21037/jss.2020.01.05.
• 25. Suk KS, Kim KT, Lee JH, Lee SH, Lim YJ, Kim JS. Sagittal alignment of the cervical spine after the laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(23):E656-660. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318158c573.
• 26. Gwinn DE, Iannotti CA, Benzel EC, Steinmetz MP. Effective lordosis: analysis of sagittal spinal canal alignment in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11(6):667-672. doi: 10.3171/2009.7.SPINE08656.
• 27. Oh BH, Kim JY, Lee JB, et al. Analysis of sagittal parameters for easier and more accurate determination of cervical spine alignment. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023;102(41):e35511. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000035511.
• 28. Teo AQA, Thomas AC, Hey HWD. Sagittal alignment of the cervical spine: do we know enough for successful surgery? J Spine Surg. 2020;6(1):124-135. doi: 10.21037/jss.2019.11.18.
• 29. Lau D, Winkler EA, Than KD, Chou D, Mummaneni PV. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with posterior spinal fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: influence of cervical alignment on outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27(5):508-517. doi: 10.3171/2017.4.SPINE16831.
• 30. Lin T, Wang Z, Chen G, Liu W. Is Cervical Sagittal Balance Related to the Progression of Patients with Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy? World Neurosurg. 2020;137:e52-e67. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.12.148.
• 31. Xu C, Zhang Y, Dong M, et al. The relationship between preoperative cervical sagittal balance and clinical outcome of laminoplasty treated cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament patients. Spine J. 2020;20(9):1422-1429. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.05.542.
• 32. Li XY, Wang Y, Zhu WG, Kong C, Lu SB. Impact of cervical and global spine sagittal alignment on cervical curvature changes after posterior cervical laminoplasty. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022;17(1):521. doi: 10.1186/s13018-022-03421-w.
• 33. Stephens BF, Rhee JM, Neustein TM, Arceo R. Laminoplasty Does not Lead to Worsening Axial Neck Pain in the Properly Selected Patient With Cervical Myelopathy: A Comparison With Laminectomy and Fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(24):1844-1850. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002308.
• 34. Azimi P, Yazdanian T, Benzel EC, Hai Y, Montazeri A. Sagittal balance of the cervical spine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2021;30(6):1411-1439. doi: 10.1007/s00586-021-06825-0.