Treatment of cervical stenotic myelopathy: a cost and outcome comparison of laminoplasty versus laminectomy and lateral mass fusion

Clinical article

Restricted access

Object

Cervical stenotic myelopathy due to spondylosis or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament is often treated with laminoplasty or cervical laminectomy (with fusion). The goal of this study was to compare outcomes, radiographic results, complications, and implant costs associated with these 2 treatments.

Methods

The authors analyzed the records of 56 patients (age range 42–81 years) who were surgically treated for cervical stenosis. Of this group, 30 underwent laminoplasty and 26 underwent laminectomy with fusion. Patients who had cervical kyphosis or spondylolisthesis were excluded. An average of 4 levels were instrumented in the laminoplasty group and 5 levels in the fusion group (p < 0.01). Forty-two percent of the fusions crossed the cervicothoracic junction, but no laminoplasty instrumentation crossed the cervicothoracic junction, and it only reached C-7 in one-third of the cases. Preoperative and postoperative Nurick grades and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scores were obtained. Outcomes were also assessed with neck pain visual analog scale (VAS) scores and the Odom outcome criteria. Postoperative length of stay, complications, and implant costs were calculated.

Results

The mean duration of follow-up, average patient age, and length of hospital stay were similar for both groups. The mean Nurick scores were also similar in the 2 groups and improved an average of 1.4 points in both (p < 0.01 for preoperative-postoperative comparison in each group). The mean mJOA scores improved 2.7 points in laminoplasty patients and 2.8 points in fusion patients (p < 0.01 for each group). The mean VAS scores for neck pain did not change significantly in the laminoplasty cohort (3.2 ± 2.8 [SD] preoperatively vs 3.4 ± 2.6 postoperatively, p = 0.50). In the fusion cohort, the mean VAS scores improved from 5.8 ± 3.2 to 3.0 ± 2.3 (p < 0.01). Excellent or good Odom outcomes were observed in 76.7% of the patients in the laminoplasty cohort and 80.8% of those in the fusion cohort (p = 0.71). In the fusion group, complications were twice as common and implant costs were nearly 3 times as high as in the laminoplasty group. When cases involving fusions crossing the cervicothoracic junction were excluded, analysis showed similar complication rates in the 2 groups.

Conclusions

Patients treated with laminoplasty and patients treated with laminectomy and fusion had similar improvements in Nurick scores, mJOA scores, and Odom outcomes. Patients who underwent fusion typically had higher preoperative neck pain scores, but their neck pain improved significantly after surgery. There was no significant change in the neck pain scores of patients treated with laminoplasty. Our series suggests cervical fusion significantly reduces neck pain in patients with stenotic myelopathy, but that the cost of the implant and rate of reoperation are greater than in laminoplasty.

Abbreviations used in this paper: mJOA = modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association; VAS = visual analog scale.
Article Information

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to: Praveen V. Mummaneni, M.D., UCSF Spine Center, University of California, San Francisco, 400 Parnassus Avenue, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, California 94143. email: vmum@aol.com.Please include this information when citing this paper: published online February 25, 2011; DOI: 10.3171/2011.1.SPINE10206.
Headings
References
  • 1

    Butler JCWhitecloud TS III: Postlaminectomy kyphosis. Causes and surgical management. Orthop Clin North Am 23:5055111992

  • 2

    Cerisoli MVernizzi EGiulioni M: Cervical spine changes following laminectomy. Clinico-radiological study. J Neurosurg Sci 24:63701980

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Crandall PHGregorius FK: Long-term follow-up of surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 2:1391461977

  • 4

    Deutsch HMummaneni PVRodts GEHaid RW: Posterior cervical laminoplasty using a new plating system: technical note. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:3173202004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Ebersold MJPare MCQuast LM: Surgical treatment for cervical spondylitic myelopathy. J Neurosurg 82:7457511995

  • 6

    Frank EKeenen TL: A technique for cervical laminoplasty using mini plates. Br J Neurosurg 8:1971991994

  • 7

    Guigui PBenoist MDeburge A: Spinal deformity and instability after multilevel cervical laminectomy for spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 23:4404471998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Guigui PLefevre CLassale BDeburge A: [Static and dynamic changes of the cervical spine after laminectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 84:17251998. (Fr)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Heller JGEdwards CC IIMurakami HRodts GE: Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched cohort analysis. Spine 26:133013362001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Hirabayashi K: [Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.]. Jpn J Surg 32:115911631978. (Jpn)

  • 11

    Hirabayashi KWatanabe KWakano KSuzuki NSatomi KIshii Y: Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine 8:6936991983

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Inoue AIkata TKatoh S: Spinal deformity following surgery for spinal cord tumors and tumorous lesions: analysis based on an assessment of the spinal functional curve. Spinal Cord 34:5365421996

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Itoh TTsuji H: Technical improvements and results of laminoplasty for compressive myelopathy in the cervical spine. Spine 10:7297361985

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Kaminsky SBClark CRTraynelis VC: Operative treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy. A comparison of laminectomy and laminoplasty at five year average follow-up. Iowa Orthop J 24:951052004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Kaptain GJSimmons NEReplogle REPobereskin L: Incidence and outcome of kyphotic deformity following laminectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg 93:2 Suppl1992042000

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Kumar VGRea GLMervis LJMcGregor JM: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: functional and radiographic long-term outcome after laminectomy and posterior fusion. Neurosurgery 44:7717781999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Nakagawa HMizuno J: Pathogenesis and surgical management of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. No Shinkei Geka 24:2052101996

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Nurick S: The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 95:871001972

  • 19

    O'Brien MFPeterson DCasey ATCrockard HA: A novel technique for laminoplasty augmentation of spinal canal area using titanium miniplate stabilization. A computerized morphometric analysis. Spine 21:4744841996

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Ratliff JKCooper PR: Cervical laminoplasty: a critical review. J Neurosurg 98:3 Suppl2302382003

  • 21

    Tomita KKawahara NToribatake YHeller JG: Expansive midline T-saw laminoplasty (modified spinous process-splitting) for the management of cervical myelopathy. Spine 23:32371998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Vitarbo ESheth RNLevi AD: Open-door expansile cervical laminoplasty. Neurosurgery 60:1 Supp1 1S154S1592007

  • 23

    Wang MYShah SGreen BA: Clinical outcomes following cervical laminoplasty for 204 patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Surg Neurol 62:4874932004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Yasuoka SPeterson HALaws ER JrMacCarty CS: Pathogenesis and prophylaxis of postlaminectomy deformity of the spine after multiple level laminectomy: difference between children and adults. Neurosurgery 9:1451521981

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Yeh JSSgouros SWalsh ARHockley AD: Spinal sagittal malalignment following surgery for primary intramedullary tumours in children. Pediatr Neurosurg 35:3183242001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
TrendMD
Cited By
Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 462 419 26
Full Text Views 176 130 1
PDF Downloads 163 67 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0
PubMed
Google Scholar