Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is a degenerative process which may result in clinical signs and symptoms which require surgical intervention. Many treatment options have been proposed with various degrees of technical difficulty and technique sensitive benefits. We review laminoplasty as a motion-sparing posterior decompressive method. Current literature supports the use of laminoplasty for indicated decompression. We also decribe our surgical technique for an open-door, or “hinged”, laminoplasty. 1. Introduction Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is the natural result of degenerative compression on the cervical spinal cord. The result may be a progressive and stepwise deterioration of neurological function in patients. The chronic debilitating nature of this process justifies surgical decompression. Posterior decompression has been described as a treatment for CSM since the 1940s. Laminectomy was the initial surgical option used. The decompression was performed by rongeurs. However, the insertion of the rongeur in an already limited space available for the cord led often to a decrease in neurological function postoperatively [1–3]. Even with modern approaches to laminectomy using high speed burs, development of postoperative instability has led surgeons to explore more efficacious ways of decompression. In 1977, Hirabayashi and Satomi published their results on multisegment decompression by means of an open-door laminoplasty [4]. This technique allows for adequate posterior decompression of the spinal cord while retaining the posterior elements. This avoids the postoperative instability seen with laminectomy as well as the stiffness and risks of posterior cervical fusion. Additionally, motion is spared due to the absence of a fusion. There have since been multiple techniques for performing a cervical laminoplasty described with supporting literature [4–8]. These techniques include the expansive “open door,” a midline “French Door,” En Bloc resection, spinous process splitting, and Z-Plasty [4, 9]. Outcome studies have supported laminoplasty as a valid treatment for CSM however, no definitive literature shows its superiority to laminectomy in conjunction with a posterior cervical fusion. All surgical strategies appear to be equal in yielding neurologic outcomes, though differences are found in complication reports. Patient selection is crucial prior to proceeding with cervical laminoplasty. Special attention must be paid to sagittal alignment for optimal outcomes. Laminoplasty is ideal for multilevel stenosis (AP canal diameter < 13？mm) due to
References
[1]
H. H. Bohlman, “Cervical spondylosis with moderate to severe myelopathy,” Spine, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 151–162, 1977.
[2]
J. J. Graham, “Complications of cervical spine surgery,” in The Cervical Spine, H. H. Shard, et al., Ed., pp. 831–837, J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 2nd edition, 1989.
[3]
F. H. Mayfield, “Complications of laminectomy,” Clinical Neurosurgery, vol. 23, pp. 435–439, 1976.
[4]
K. Hirabayashi and K. Satomi, “Operative procedure and results of expansive open-door laminoplasty,” Spine, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 870–876, 1988.
[5]
C. C. Edwards, J. G. Heller, and D. H. Silcox, “T-saw laminoplasty for the management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: clinical and radiographic outcome,” Spine, vol. 25, no. 14, pp. 1788–1794, 2000.
[6]
M. Iwasaki, S. Ebara, S. Miyamoto, E. Wada, and K. Yonenobu, “Expansive laminoplasty for cervical radiculomyelopathy due to soft disc herniation: a comparative study of laminoplasty and anterior arthrodesis,” Spine, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 32–38, 1996.
[7]
S. I. Kihara, T. Umebayashi, and M. Hoshimaru, “Technical improvements and results of open-door expansive laminoplasty with hydroxyapatite implants for cervical myelopathy,” Neurosurgery, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 348–355, 2005.
[8]
Y. Saruhashi, S. Hukuda, A. Katsuura, K. Miyahara, S. Asajima, and K. Omura, “A long-term follow-up study of cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated by 'French window' laminoplasty,” Journal of Spinal Disorders, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 99–101, 1999.
[9]
J. K. Ratliff and P. R. Cooper, “Cervical laminoplasty: a critical review,” Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 230–238, 2003.
[10]
P. G. Matz, P. A. Anderson, M. W. Groff et al., “Cervical laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical degenerative myelopathy,” Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 157–169, 2009.
[11]
M. P. Steinmetz and D. K. Resnick, “Cervical laminoplasty,” Spine Journal, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. S274–S281, 2006.
[12]
K. S. Suk, K. T. Kim, J. H. Lee, S. H. Lee, Y. J. Lim, and J. S. Kim, “Sagittal alignment of the cervical spine after the laminoplasty,” Spine, vol. 32, no. 23, pp. E656–E660, 2007.
[13]
S. Imagama, Y. Matsuyama, Y. Yukawa et al., “C5 palsy after cervical laminoplasty: a multicentre study,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery—Series B, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 393–400, 2010.
[14]
K. Uchida, H. Nakajima, R. Sato et al., “Cervical spondylotic myelopathy associated with kyphosis or sagittal sigmoid alignment: outcome after anterior or posterior decompression—clinical article,” Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 521–528, 2009.
[15]
K. Yoneunobu, E. Wada, and K. Ono, “Treatment of cervical myelopathy. Part B: laminoplasty,” in The Cervical Spine, C. R. Clark, et al., Ed., pp. 1057–1071, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 4th edition, 2005.
[16]
Y. Handa, T. Kubota, H. Ishii, K. Sato, A. Tsuchida, and Y. Arai, “Evaluation of prognostic factors and clinical outcome in elderly patients in whom expansive laminoplasty is performed for cervical myelopathy due to multisegmental spondylotic canal stenosis. A retrospective comparison with younger patients,” Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 173–179, 2002.
[17]
K. Miyazaki, E. Hirohuji, S. Ono, et al., “Extensive simultaneous multisegmental laminectomy and posterior decompression with posterolateral fusion,” The Journal of the Japanese Spine Research Society, vol. 5, article 167, 1994 (Japanese).
[18]
J. G. Heller, C. C. Edwards, H. Murakami, and G. E. Rodts, “Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched cohort analysis,” Spine, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 1330–1336, 2001.
[19]
B. I. Woods, J. Hohl, J. Lee, W. Donaldson, and J. Kang, “Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, vol. 469, no. 3, pp. 688–695, 2011.
[20]
A. Seichi, K. Takeshita, I. Ohishi et al., “Long-term results of double-door laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy,” Spine, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 479–487, 2001.
[21]
I. Aita, K. Hayashi, Y. Wadano, and T. Yabuki, “Posterior movement and enlargement of the spinal cord after cervical laminoplasty,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery—Series B, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 33–37, 1998.
[22]
T. Sodeyama, S. Goto, M. Mochizuki, J. Takahashi, and H. Moriya, “Effect of decompression enlargement laminoplasty for posterior shifting of the spinal cord,” Spine, vol. 24, no. 15, pp. 1527–1532, 1999.
[23]
N. Tsuzuki, L. Zhogshi, R. Abe, and K. Saiki, “Paralysis of the arm after posterior decompression of the cervical spinal cord. I. Anatomical investigation of the mechanism of paralysis,” European Spine Journal, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 191–196, 1993.
[24]
N. Tsuzuki, R. Abe, K. Saiki, and K. Okai, “Paralysis of the arm after posterior decompression of the cervical spinal cord. II. Analyses of clinical findings,” European Spine Journal, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 197–202, 1993.
[25]
K. Yonenobu, N. Hosono, M. Iwasaki, M. Asano, and K. Ono, “Neurologic complications of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy,” Spine, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 1277–1282, 1991.
