Efficacy of Microscopic Posterior Cervical Laminectomy for Multilevel Compressive Cervical Myelopathy: A Long Term Analysis

  • Asati S Study performed at Mumbai Institute of Spine Surgery, Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai
  • Raut S Study performed at Mumbai Institute of Spine Surgery, Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai
  • Ruparel S Study performed at Mumbai Institute of Spine Surgery, Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai
  • Patel A Study performed at Mumbai Institute of Spine Surgery, Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai
  • Chaddha R Study performed at Mumbai Institute of Spine Surgery, Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai
  • Kundnani V Study performed at Mumbai Institute of Spine Surgery, Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai
Keywords: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy, OPLL, Cervical laminectomy, CSF leak, C5 palsy, Neurological deterioration

Abstract

Background: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy and ossified posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) are the two most common causes of compressive multilevel cervical myelopathy. These may cause progressive neurological deterioration and require surgical treatment. There is no gold standard treatment available. Anterior surgery is associated with morbidity and complications in multilevel cases because of which posterior surgeries are preferred, which have shown good clinical outcomes. We determined the long-term efficacy of microscopic posterior cervical laminectomy for multilevel compressive cervical myelopathy.

Material & Methods: We reviewed 110 patients with multilevel compressive cervical myelopathy who underwent posterior cervical laminectomy from January 2007 to December 2014. Patients with age ≥45 years, C2-C7 cobb’s angle ≥ 10º, compression at ≥3 levels and a minimum of 5 years follow-up were included in the study. Demographic data, pre‑ and post‑operative clinical parameters (visual analog scale [VAS], Nurick’s grading and modified Japanese orthopaedic association [mJOA] score), radiological parameters (C2-C7 Cobb’s Angle), peri-operative parameters, complications and recovery rate were evaluated.

Results: The mean age of the patients was 55.6 years (44-74) with M: F 68:42. The mean blood loss and mean operative time was 93.9 ml and 96.6 minutes. There was significant improvement (p<0.05) in VAS (3.7±1.5 to 1.9±0.8), Nurick’s grading (3.3±0.9 to 1.8±0.6) and mJOA score (8.3±1.4 to 13.9±1.8). At final follow-up 61.8% patients’ maintained cervical lordosis, 21.8% changes to a straight spine and 16.3% became kyphotic. Intraoperatively 7 patients had a dural tear. 3 patients showed neurological deterioration postoperatively and 3 had unilateral C5 palsy which improved within 6 months period. 19% had an excellent outcome, 39% had good, 33.6% had fair and 8.1% patients had a poor outcome.

Conclusion: Microscopic posterior cervical laminectomy is the gold standard surgical procedure in patients with multilevel compressive cervical myelopathy with good recovery and clinical outcomes in properly selected patients. In long term it may causes progression of kyphosis, without any significant clinical affection.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Kalsi‑Ryan S, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: The clinical phenomenon and the current pathobiology of an increasingly prevalent and devastating disorder. Neuroscientist 2013;19:409‑21.
2. Isogai N, Nagoshi N, Iwanami A, Kono H, Kobayashi Y, Tsuji T, et al. Surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy in the elderly: Outcomes in patients aged 80 years or older. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018;43:E1430‑6.
3. Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Kopjar B, Yoon ST, Arnold PM, Massicotte EM, et al. Efficacy and safety of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Results of the AO Spine North America prospective multi‑center study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:1651‑8.
4. Liu W, Hu L, Chou PH, et al. Comparison of anterior decompression and fusion versus laminoplasty in the treatment of multilevel cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2016;12:675–85.
5. Hirabayashi K, Satomi K. Operative procedure and results of expansive open-door laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1988;13:870–6.
6. 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: is there a difference in the clinical outcome and sagittal alignment? Clin Spine Surg 2016;29:9–15.
7. Hayashi K, Matsumura A, Konishi S, Kato M, Namikawa T, Nakamura H, et al. Clinical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion for patients 80 years of age and older with lumbar degenerative disease: Minimum 2 years’ follow‑up. Global Spine J 2016;6:665‑72.
8. Puvanesarajah V, Jain A, Shimer AL, Singla A, Shen F, Hassanzadeh H, et al. Complications and mortality following one to two‑level anterior cervical fusion for cervical spondylosis in patients above 80 years of age. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42:509‑14.
9. Zhong CJ, Xu WH. Laminectomy Followed by Fusion in Treating Severe Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament. Fujian Province: Fujian Medical University, 2009;301:1–49.
10. Kaptain GJ, Simmons NE, Replogle RE, Pobereskin L. Incidence and outcome of kyphotic deformity following laminectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg (2 Suppl) 2000;93:199-204.
11. Zdeblick TA, Abitbol J-J, Kunz DN, McCabe RP, Garfin S. Cervical stability after sequential capsule resection. Spine 1993;18:2005-8.
12. Kato Y, Iwasaki M, Fuji T, Yonenobu K, Ochi T. Long-term follow-up results of laminectomy for cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Neurosurg 1998;89:217–23.
13. Ratliff JK, Cooper PR. Cervical laminoplasty: a critical review. J Neurosurg 2003;98(3):230–8.
14. Lee SE, Chung CK, Jahng T, Kim H. Long-term outcome of laminectomy for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18(5):465-71.
15. Hori T, Kawaguchi Y, Kimura T. How does the ossification area of the posterior longitudinal ligament progress after cervical laminoplasty? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:2807–12.
16. Chiba K, Yamamoto I, Hirabayashi H, Iwasaki M, Goto H, Yonenobu K, et al. Multicenter study investigating the postoperative progression of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine: a new computer-assisted measurement. J Neurosurg Spine 2005;3:17–23.
17. Jason Pui Yin Cheung, Keith Dip-Kei Luk. Complications of Anterior and Posterior Cervical Spine Surgery Asian Spine J 2016;10(2):385-400.
18. Singhatanadgige W, Limthongkul W, Valone F, et al. Outcomes following laminoplasty or laminectomy and fusion in patients with myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a systematic review. Global Spine J 2016;6:702–9.
19. Bartels RH, Groenewoud H, Peul WC, Arts MP. Lamifuse: Results of a randomized controlled trial comparing laminectomy with and without fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Sci 2017;61:134‑9.
Published
2020-12-31
How to Cite
1.
Asati S, Raut S, Ruparel S, Patel A, Chaddha R, Kundnani V. Efficacy of Microscopic Posterior Cervical Laminectomy for Multilevel Compressive Cervical Myelopathy: A Long Term Analysis. ojmpc [Internet]. 2020Dec.31 [cited 2021Mar.9];27(1):15-1. Available from: https://ojmpc.com/index.php/ojmpc/article/view/130
Section
Original Article

Most read articles by the same author(s)