Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg
DOI: 10.1055/a-2005-0552
Original Article

Comparison of Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion and Posterior Laminoplasty for Four-Segment Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes

Liang Shi   *
1   Department of Orthopedics, Xiangyang No.1 People's Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Xiangyang, China
,
Tao Ding   *
2   Department of Spine Surgery, Shengli Oilfield Central Hospital, Dongying, Shandong, China
,
Fang Wang
3   Department of Pathology, Qujing Second People's Hospital of Yunnan Province, Qujing, China
,
Chengcong Wu
4   Department of Spine Surgery, Qujing First People's Hospital: Kunming Medical University Affiliated Qujing Hospital, Qujing, Yunnan, China
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Although anterior or posterior surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) has been extensively studied, the choice of anterior or posterior approach in four-segment CSM remains poorly studied and controversial. We compared the clinical and radiographic outcomes of four-segment CSM by posterior laminoplasty (LAMP) and anterior cervical decompression fusion (ACDF) to further explore the merits and demerits of ACDF and LAMP for four-segment CSM in this study.

Methods Patients with four-segment CSM who underwent ACDF or LAMP between January 2016 and June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. We compared the preoperative and postoperative cervical Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, neck disability index (NDI), neck pain visual analog scale (VAS) score, sagittal vertical axis, cervical lordosis (CL), and range of motion.

Results There were 47 and 79 patients in the ACDF and LAMP groups, respectively. Patients in the ACDF group had a significantly longer surgical time and lower estimated blood loss and length of stay than those in the LAMP group. There was no significant difference in the JOA, NDI, or neck pain VAS scores between the two groups preoperatively, but the NDI and neck pain VAS scores in the ACDF group were significantly lower than those in the LAMP group at the final follow-up. The preoperative C2–C7 Cobb angle of the ACDF group was significantly lower than that of the LAMP group but there was no significant difference between the two groups postoperatively. The improvement of C2–C7 Cobb angle (∆C2–C7 Cobb angle) in the ACDF group was significantly higher than that in the LAMP group. This indicated that ACDF can improve CL better than LAMP. The linear regression analysis revealed the ∆C2–C7 Cobb angle was negatively correlated with the final follow-up neck pain VAS scores and NDI. This indicated that patients with better improvement of CL may have a better prognosis.

Conclusions Although both ACDF and LAMP surgeries are effective for four-segment CSM, ACDF can better improve CL and neck pain. For patients with poor CL, we suggest ACDF when both approaches are feasible.

Keywords

cervical spondylotic myelopathy - four-segment CSM - anterior cervical decompression and fusion - laminoplasty - neck pain

* Liang Shi Tao Ding are the co-first authors of this study.




Publication History

Received: 20 July 2022

Accepted: 27 December 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
30 December 2022

Article published online:
01 May 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Badhiwala JH, Ahuja CS, Akbar MA. et al. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: update and future directions. Nat Rev Neurol 2020; 16 (02) 108-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: epidemiology, genetics, and pathogenesis. Spine 2015; 40 (12) E675-E693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Davies BM, Mowforth OD, Smith EK, Kotter MR. Degenerative cervical myelopathy. BMJ 2018; 360: k186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Iyer A, Azad TD, Tharin S. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Spine Surg 2016; 29 (10) 408-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Deora H, Kim S-H, Behari S. et al; World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS) Spine Committee. Anterior surgical techniques for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: WFNS Spine Committee recommendations. Neurospine 2019; 16 (03) 408-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Chen Q, Qin M, Chen F, Ni B, Guo Q, Han Z. Comparison of outcomes between anterior cervical decompression and fusion and posterior laminoplasty in the treatment of 4-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy. World Neurosurg 2019; 125: e341-e347
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Zhou C, Liu C, Panchal RR, Ma X, Chen X. Modified expansive laminoplasty and fusion compared with anterior cervical surgeries in treating four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Int Med Res 2019; 47 (06) 2413-2423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Inose H, Yoshii T, Kimura A. et al. Comparison of clinical and radiographic outcomes of laminoplasty, anterior decompression with fusion, and posterior decompression with fusion for degenerative cervical myelopathy: a prospective multicenter study. Spine 2020; 45 (20) E1342-E1348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Montano N, Ricciardi L, Olivi A. Comparison of anterior cervical decompression and fusion versus laminoplasty in the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes. World Neurosurg 2019; 130: 530-536.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hitchon PW, Woodroffe RW, Noeller JA, Helland L, Hramakova N, Nourski KV. Anterior and posterior approaches for cervical myelopathy: clinical and radiographic outcomes. Spine 2019; 44 (09) 615-623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hirai T, Okawa A, Arai Y. et al. Middle-term results of a prospective comparative study of anterior decompression with fusion and posterior decompression with laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 2011; 36 (23) 1940-1947
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Luo J, Cao K, Huang S. et al. Comparison of anterior approach versus posterior approach for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J 2015; 24 (08) 1621-1630
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lawrence BD, Jacobs WB, Norvell DC, Hermsmeyer JT, Chapman JR, Brodke DS. Anterior versus posterior approach for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine 2013; 38 (22, Suppl 1): S173-S182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Zhu B, Xu Y, Liu X, Liu Z, Dang G. Anterior approach versus posterior approach for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2013; 22 (07) 1583-1593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sakai K, Yoshii T, Hirai T, Arai Y, Shinomiya K, Okawa A. Impact of the surgical treatment for degenerative cervical myelopathy on the preoperative cervical sagittal balance: a review of prospective comparative cohort between anterior decompression with fusion and laminoplasty. Eur Spine J 2017; 26 (01) 104-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Jiang L, Tan M, Dong L. et al. Comparison of anterior decompression and fusion with posterior laminoplasty for multilevel cervical compressive myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015; 28 (08) 282-290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Liu X, Wang H, Zhou Z, Jin A. Anterior decompression and fusion versus posterior laminoplasty for multilevel cervical compressive myelopathy. Orthopedics 2014; 37 (02) e117-e122
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ren H, Liu F, Yu D. et al. Patterns of neurological recovery after anterior decompression with fusion and posterior decompression with laminoplasty for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Spine Surg 2017; 30 (08) E1104-E1110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Badhiwala JH, Ellenbogen Y, Khan O. et al. Comparison of the inpatient complications and health care costs of anterior versus posterior cervical decompression and fusion in patients with multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy: a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis. World Neurosurg 2020; 134: e112-e119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 El-Ghandour NMF, Soliman MAR, Ezzat AAM, Mohsen A, Zein-Elabedin M. The safety and efficacy of anterior versus posterior decompression surgery in degenerative cervical myelopathy: a prospective randomized trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2020; 1: 1-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hirai T, Yoshii T, Sakai K. et al. Long-term results of a prospective study of anterior decompression with fusion and posterior decompression with laminoplasty for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Orthop Sci 2018; 23 (01) 32-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sakai K, Okawa A, Takahashi M. et al. Five-year follow-up evaluation of surgical treatment for cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a prospective comparative study of anterior decompression and fusion with floating method versus laminoplasty. Spine 2012; 37 (05) 367-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Yoshii T, Egawa S, Chikuda H. et al. Comparison of anterior decompression with fusion and posterior decompression with fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Sci 2020; 25 (06) 938-945
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Pescatori L, Tropeano MP, Visocchi M, Grasso G, Ciappetta P. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: when and why the cervical corpectomy?. World Neurosurg 2020; 140: 548-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 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 1981; 6 (04) 354-364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 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 (05) 508-517
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Denaro V, Longo UG, Berton A, Salvatore G, Denaro L. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: the relevance of the spinal cord back shift after posterior multilevel decompression. A systematic review. Eur Spine J 2015; 24 (Suppl. 07) 832-841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Head J, Rymarczuk G, Stricsek G. et al. Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: surgical approaches and associated complications. Neurospine 2019; 16 (03) 517-529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Swank ML, Lowery GL, Bhat AL, McDonough RF. Anterior cervical allograft arthrodesis and instrumentation: multilevel interbody grafting or strut graft reconstruction. Eur Spine J 1997; 6 (02) 138-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Guo Q, Bi X, Ni B. et al. Outcomes of three anterior decompression and fusion techniques in the treatment of three-level cervical spondylosis. Eur Spine J 2011; 20 (09) 1539-1544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Bajamal AH, Kim S-H, Arifianto MR. et al; World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS) Spine Committee. Posterior surgical techniques for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: WFNS Spine Committee recommendations. Neurospine 2019; 16 (03) 421-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Matz PG, Anderson PA, Groff MW. et al; Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Cervical laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical degenerative myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2009; 11 (02) 157-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Smith JS, Lafage V, Ryan DJ. et al. Association of myelopathy scores with cervical sagittal balance and normalized spinal cord volume: analysis of 56 preoperative cases from the AOSpine North America Myelopathy study. Spine 2013; 38 (22, Suppl 1): S161-S170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Scheer JK, Tang JA, Smith JS. et al; International Spine Study Group. Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications: a review. J Neurosurg Spine 2013; 19 (02) 141-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Wewel JT, Brahimaj BC, Kasliwal MK, Traynelis VC. Perioperative complications with multilevel anterior and posterior cervical decompression and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2019; 20: 1-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Nanda A, Sharma M, Sonig A, Ambekar S, Bollam P. Surgical complications of anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion for cervical degenerative disk disease: a single surgeon's experience of 1,576 patients. World Neurosurg 2014; 82 (06) 1380-1387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Yoshihara H, Margalit A, Yoneoka D. Incidence of C5 palsy: meta-analysis and potential etiology. World Neurosurg 2019; 122: e828-e837
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Wang T, Wang H, Liu S, Ding WY. Incidence of C5 nerve root palsy after cervical surgery: a meta-analysis for last decade. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96 (45) e8560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Wu FL, Sun Y, Pan SF, Zhang L, Liu ZJ. Risk factors associated with upper extremity palsy after expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy. Spine J 2014; 14 (06) 909-915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Oh JK, Hong JT, Kang DH. et al. Epidemiology of C5 palsy after cervical spine surgery: a 21-center study. Neurospine 2019; 16 (03) 558-562
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Shou F, Li Z, Wang H, Yan C, Liu Q, Xiao C. Prevalence of C5 nerve root palsy after cervical decompressive surgery: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2015; 24 (12) 2724-2734
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Lee S-H, Suk K-S, Kang K-C. et al. Outcomes and related factors of C5 palsy following cervical laminectomy with instrumented fusion compared with laminoplasty. Spine 2016; 41 (10) E574-E579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Kim G-U, Lee GW. Selective blocking laminoplasty in cervical laminectomy and fusion to prevent postoperative C5 palsy. Spine J 2019; 19 (04) 617-623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Nassr A, Aleem IS, Eck JC. et al. Does resection of the posterior longitudinal ligament impact the incidence of C5 palsy after cervical corpectomy procedures?: a review of 459 consecutive cases. Spine 2017; 42 (07) E392-E397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Bydon M, Macki M, Kaloostian P. et al. Incidence and prognostic factors of C5 palsy: a clinical study of 1001 cases and review of the literature. Neurosurgery 2014; 74 (06) 595-604 , discussion 604–605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 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 2017; 42 (24) 1844-1850
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Kimura A, Shiraishi Y, Inoue H, Endo T, Takeshita K. Predictors of persistent axial neck pain after cervical laminoplasty. Spine 2018; 43 (01) 10-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M. et al. Impact of deep extensor muscle-preserving approach on clinical outcome of laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: comparative cohort study. Eur Spine J 2012; 21 (08) 1536-1544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar