Open-door laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spon-dylotic myelopathy: Good outcome in 12 patients using suture anchor fixation

Acta Orthopaedica

Volumn 79, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 62-66

  Yang, Shih Chieh ^a,b   Niu, Chi Chien ^b   Chen, Wen Jer ^b   Wu, Chin Hsien ^a,b   Yu, Shang Won ^a,b  

^a I SHOU UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b CHANG GUNG UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CERVICAL SPONDYLOSIS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LAMINOPLASTY; MALE; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; MEDICAL EDUCATION; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHY; RESTENOSIS; SPINAL CORD DISEASE; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; DECOMPRESSION, SURGICAL; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; LAMINECTOMY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; SPINAL CORD DISEASES; SPINAL STENOSIS; SUTURE ANCHORS; SUTURE TECHNIQUES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 39449124730     PISSN: 17453674     EISSN: 17453682     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17453670710014770     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. An H S, Gordin R, Renner K. Anatomic considerations for plate-screw fixation of the cervical spine. Spine 1991; 16: S548-51.
2. An H S, Simpson J M, Glover J M, Stephany J. Comparison between allograft plus demineralized bone matrix versus autograft in anterior cervical fusion. A prospective multicenter study. Spine 1995; 20: 2211-6.
3. Edwards II C C, Heller J G, Murakami H. Corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched-cohort analysis. Spine 2002; 27: 1168-75.
4. Goulet J A, Senunas L E, DeSilva G L, Greenfield M L. Autogenous iliac crest bone graft. Complications and functional assessment. Clin Orthop 1997; (339): 76-81.
5. Graham A W, Swank M L, Kinard R E, Lowery G L, Dials B E. Posterior cervical arthrodesis and stabilization with a lateral mass plate. Clinical and computed tomographic evaluation of lateral mass screw placement and associated complications. Spine 1996; 21: 323-8.
6. Hase H, Watanabe T, Hirasawa Y, Hashimoto H, Miyamoto T, Chatani K, Kageyama N, Mikami Y. Bilateral open laminoplasty using ceramic laminas for cervical myelopathy. Spine 1991; 16: 1269-76.
7. Heller J G, Carlson G D, Abitbol J J, Garfin S R. Anatomic comparison of the Roy-Camille and Magerl techniques for screw placement in the lower cervical spine. Spine 1991; 16: S552-7.
8. Heller J G, Edwards II C C, 2nd, Murakami H, Rodts G E. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched cohort analysis. Spine 2001; 26: 1330-6.
9. Hirabayashi K. Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Shujutsu 1978; 32: 1159-63.
10. Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, Suzuki N, Satomi K, Ishii Y. Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine 1983; 8: 693-9.
11. Hoshi K, Kurokawa T, Nakamura K, Hoshino Y, Saita K, Miyoshi K. Expansive cervical laminoplasties - observations on comparative changes in spinous process lengths following longitudinal laminal divisions using autogenous bone or hydroxyapatite spacers. Spinal Cord 1996; 34: 725-8.
12. Iizuka H, Iizuka Y, Nakagawa Y, Nakajima T, Toda N, Shimegi A, Tsutsumi S, Takagishi K. Interlaminar bony fusion after cervical laminoplasty: its characteristics and relationship with clinical results. Spine 2006; 31: 644-7.
13. Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishihara H, Ohmori K, Abe Y, Kimura T. Pathomechanism of myelopathy and surgical results of laminoplasty in elderly patients with cervical spondylosis. Spine 2003; 28: 2209-14.
14. Naito M, Ogata K, Kurose S, Oyama M. Canal-expansive laminoplasty in 83 patients with cervical myelopathy. A comparative study of three different procedures. Int Orthop 1994; 18: 347-51.
15. Nakano N, Nakano T, Nakano K. Comparison of the results of laminectomy and open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myeloradiculopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine 1988; 13: 792-4.
16. Nurick S. The pathogenesis of spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 1972; 95: 87-100.
17. O'Brien M F, Peterson D, Casey A T, Crockard H A. A novel technique for laminoplasty augmentation of spinal canal area using titanium miniplate stabilization. A computerized morphometric analysis. Spine 1996; 21: 474-83.
18. Oyama M, Hattori S, Noriwaki N. A new method of cervical laminectomy. Chubuseisaisi 1973; 16: 792-4.
19. Park A E, Heller J G. Outcomes review of laminoplasty for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Curr Opin Orthop 2006; 17: 268-73.
20. Seichi A, Takeshita K, Ohishi I, Kawaguchi H, Akune T, Anamizu Y, Kitagawa T, Nakamura K. Long-term results of double-door laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine 2001; 26: 479-87.
21. Seybold E A, Baker J A, Criscitiello A A, Ordway N R, Park C K, Connolly P J. Characteristics of unicortical and bicortical lateral mass screws in the cervical spine. Spine 1999; 24: 2397-403.
22. Tomford W W. Transmission of disease through transplantation of musculoskeletal allografts. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1995; 77: 1742-54.
23. Wada E, Suzuki S, Kanazawa A, Matsuoka T, Miyamoto S, Yonenobu K. Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a long-term follow-up study over 10 years. Spine 2001; 26: 1443-7.
24. Yue W M, Tan C T, Tan S B, Tan S K, Tay B K. Results of cervical laminoplasty and a comparison between single and double trap-door techniques. J Spinal Disord 2000; 13: 329-35.