Cervical range of motion and alignment after laminoplasty preserving or reattaching the semispinalis cervicis inserted into axis

Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques

Volumn 20, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 571-576

  Takeuchi, Kazunari ^a   Yokoyama, Toru ^a   Ono, Atsushi ^a   Numasawa, Takuya ^a   Wada, Kanichiro ^a   Kumagai, Gentaro ^a   Ito, Junji ^b   Ueyama, Kazumasa ^c   Toh, Satoshi ^a  

^a HIROSAKI UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b AOMORI PREFECTURAL CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^c National Hospital Organization   (Japan)

Author keywords

Alignment; Cervical laminoplasty; Cervical myelopathy; Range of motion (ROM); Semispinalis cervicis muscle

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BACK MUSCLE; CERVICAL MYELOPATHY; CERVICAL SPINE; CERVICAL SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LAMINECTOMY; LAMINOPLASTY; LORDOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NECK MUSCLE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SEMISPINALIS CERVICIS MUSCLE; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; LAMINECTOMY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NECK MUSCLES; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 36749032272     PISSN: 15360652     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318046363a     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Seichi A, Takeshita K, Ohishi I, et al. Long-term results of double-door laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine. 2001;26:479-487.
2. Wada E, Suzuki S, Kanazawa A, et al. Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. A long-term follow-up study over 10 years. Spine. 2001;26:1443-1447.
3. Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishihara H, et al. Minimum 10-year followup after en bloc cervical laminoplasty. Clin Orthop. 2003;294:129-139.
4. Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, et al. Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine. 1981;6:354-364.
5. Yoshida M, Otani K, Shibasaki K, et al. Expansive laminoplasty with reattachment of spinous process and extensor musculature for cervical myelopathy. Spine. 1992;17:491-497.
6. Satomi K, Nishu Y, Kohno T, et al. Long-term follow-up studies of open-door expansive laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine. 1994;19:507-510.
7. Baba H, Mezawa Y, Imura S, et al. Flexibility and alignment of the cervical spine after laminoplasty for spondylotic myelopathy. A radiographic study. Int Orthop. 1995;19:116-121.
8. Kimura I, Shingu H, Nasu Y. Long-term follow-up of cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated by canal-expansive laminoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 1995;77B:956-961.
9. Tomita K, Kawahara N, Toribatake Y, et al. Expansive midline T-saw laminoplasty (modified spinous-splitting) for the management of cervical myelopathy. Spine. 1998;23:32-37.
10. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Ishihara H, et al. Surgical outcome of cervical expansive laminoplasty in patients with diabetes mellitus. Spine. 2000;25:551-555.
11. Fujimura Y, Nishi Y. Atrophy of the nuchal muscle and change in cervical curvature after expansive open-door laminoplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1996;115:203-205.
12. Sasai K, Saito T, Araki S, et al. Cervical curvature after laminoplasty for spondylotic myelopathy-involvement of yellow ligament, semispinalis cervicis muscle, and nuchal ligament. J Spinal Disord. 2000;13:26-30.
13. Iizuka H, Shimizu T, Tateno K, et al. Extensor musculature of the cervical spine after laminoplasty. Morphologic evaluation by coronal view of the magnetic resonance image. Spine. 2001;26:2220-2226.
14. Suda K, Abumi K, Ito M, et al. Local kyphosis reduces surgical outcomes of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2003;28:1258-1262.
15. Iizuka H, Nakagawa Y, Shimegi A, et al. Clinical results after cervical laminoplasty. Differences due to the duration of wearing a cervical collar. J Spinal Disord. 2005;18:489-491.
16. Nolan JP Jr, Sherk HH. Biomechanical evaluation of the extensor musculature of the cervical spine. Spine. 1988;13:9-11.
17. Sherk HH. Stability of the lower cervical spine. In: Kehr P, Weidner A, eds. Cervical Spine I. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1987:59-64.
18. Conley MS, Meyer RA, Bloomberg JJ, et al. Noninvasive analysis of human neck muscle function. Spine. 1995;20:2505-2512.
19. Vasabada AN, Li S, Delp SL. Influence of muscle morphometry and moment arms on the moment-generating capacity of human neck muscles. Spine. 1998;23:412-422.
20. Kurokawa T, Nakamura K, Hoshino Y. On double door laminoplasty splitting spinous processes of cervical spine (in Japanese). Rinsho Seikeigeka. 1995;30:566-571.
21. Takeuchi K, Yokoyama T, Aburakawa S, et al. Axial symptoms after cervical laminoplasty with C3 laminectomy compared with conventional C3-C7 laminoplasty. A modified laminoplasty preserving the semispinalis cervicis inserted into axis. Spine. 2005;30:2544-2549.
22. Nakano K, Harata S, Suetsuna F, et al. Spinous process-splitting laminoplasty using hydroxyapatite spinous process spacer. Spine. 1992;17:S41-S43.
23. McGregor M. The significance of certain measurements of the skull in the diagnosis of basilar impression. Br J Radiol. 1948;21:171-181.
24. Bartko JJ. The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychol Rep. 1966;19:3-11.
25. Yokoyama T, Takeuchi K, Aburakawa S, et al. The controversial points in cervical laminoplasty for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: in comparison with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (in Japanese). Bessatsu Seikeigeka. 2004;45:215-220.
26. Maeda T, Arizono T, Saito T, et al. Cervical alignment, range of motion, and instability after cervical laminoplasty. Clin Orthop. 2002;401:132-138.