Abstract
-
Objective
Cervical laminoplasty has been widely accepted as one of the major treatments for cervical myelopathy and various modifications and supplementary procedures have been devised to achieve both proper decompression and stability of the cervical spine. We present the retrospectively analyzed results of a modified unilateral open-door laminoplasty using hydroxyapatite (HA) spacers and malleable titanium miniplates.
-
Methods
From June 2008 to May 2012, among patients diagnosed with cervical spondylotic myelopathy and ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament, the patients who received laminoplasty were reviewed. Clinical outcome was assessed using Frankel grade and Japanese Orthopaedic Association score. The radiologic parameters were obtained from plain films, 3-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance images.
-
Results
A total of 125 cervical laminae were operated in 38 patients. 11 patients received 4-level laminoplasty and 27 patients received 3-level laminoplasty. Postoperatively, the mean Frankel grade and JOA score were significantly improved from 3.97 to 4.55 and from 12.76 to 14.63, respectively (p<0.001). Radiologically, cervical curvature was worsened from 19.09 to 15.60 (p=0.025). The percentage of range of motion preservation was 73.32±22.39%. The axial dimension of the operated spinal canal was increased from 1.75 to 2.70 cm2 (p<0.001).
-
Conclusion
In the presenting study, unilateral open-door laminoplasty using HA spacers and miniplates appears to be a safe, rapid and easy procedure to obtain an immediate and rigid stabilization of the posterior elements of the cervical spine. This modified laminoplasty method showed effective expansion of the spinal canal and favorable clinical outcomes.
-
Keywords: Cervical vertebrae, Spinal cord compression, Ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament, Hydroxyapatites, Bone plates
INTRODUCTION
After the introduction of the laminoplasty by Hirabayashi in 1977
9), the expansive open door laminoplasty has become a widely adopted surgical procedure for treating multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), spinal cord injury without fracture and dislocation with cervical spinal stenosis. Thereafter, various techniques for cervical laminoplasty were reported by several authors. Based on the results in these reports, laminectomy has been widely replaced by laminoplasty
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
16,
17,
21,
22,
26).
Laminoplasty is usually classified as open door (single door) or double door (French door). Since then, various modifications and supplementary procedures have been devised for further improvement of safety and efficacy of the decompression and for stability of the spine.
Traditional laminoplasty has proven effective in resolving neurological symptoms. However, because of the absence of rigid fixation, secondary narrowing of the spinal canal and neurological deterioration over the long-term follow-up
2,
14), several types of rigid fixation have been introduced in an attempt to improve the surgery. Plate fixation combined with bone struts and ceramic spacers, or spacers alone, or plate fixation alone has also been used during laminoplasty to construct a complete laminar arch
5).
Plate fixations alone are technically facile to insert. However, the absence of bone healing on the open side, cannot achieve the goal of recreating a stable laminar arch without solid bony union on the hinge side
28). Bone struts and ceramic spacers have a benefit that they can recreate a lamina arch, as bony healing can occur on both the grafted side. However, it has a risk associated with graft kickout, which causes reclosure of the lamina and root or cord compression by spacer dislodgement into the spinal canal
12,
23).
We have used a modified unilateral open-door laminoplasty using hydroxyapatite (HA: HOYA Corporation PENTAX, Tokyo, Japan) spacers and malleable titanium miniplates (
Fig. 1). And we retrospectively analyzed its clinical and radiological results.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed the outcome of consecutive 38 patients who underwent modified unilateral open-door laminoplasty using HA spacers and malleable titanium miniplates between June 2008 and May 2012. There were 29 men and 9 women who ranged in age from 38 to 77 years (mean 55.2 years). CSM was present in 23 patients and OPLL was present in 15 patients. Of these, 17 patients had a history of trauma and 21 patients showed symptoms of cord compression without a history of trauma. For patients with a history of trauma, those who do not have a fracture or dislocation of the cervical spine were selected for the study. Mean follow up duration was 14.39 months (range 6-39 months).
Patient's neurological status was evaluated using the Frankel scale
3) just before surgery and at the final visit. In this scale, the maximum score is 'E' (normal motor, sensory function) and the minimum score is 'A' (absent motor, sensory function). We calculated a scale of 1 to 5 (1=A, 2=B, 3=C, 4=D and 5=E). The presence of myelopathy was assessed using Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scale just before surgery and postoperative final visit. In this scale, the maximum score is 17 and the minimum score is 0. Recovery from myelopathy at postoperative final visit was calculated using the formula: (Postoperative final visit JOA scale-Just before surgery JOA scale)/(17-Just before surgery JOA scale)
8).
Radiologic evaluations of the cervical spine included plain radiography at preoperative, 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 months after surgery to assess for curvature of the cervical spine (
Fig. 2), and 3-dimensional computed tomography (3-D CT) scans at 12 months after surgery to assess for dimension of the cervical spinal canal and HA position, implant-related complications (
Fig. 3). And evaluation of the cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging was performed at 12 months after surgery to assess for expansion of dural sac and decompression of spinal cord.
The curvature of the cervical spine was measured by the angle formed by two lines extending from the posterior borders of the C2 and C7 vertebral bodies in the neutral position
13), and the range of motion (ROM) was measured by the summation of the cervical angles in flexion and extension (
Fig. 2)
13). The axial dimension of the cervical spinal canal was measured at the same lamina level on the axial CT image at preoperative and 12 months after surgery, and the number of pixels of spinal canal was calculated by Image J program version 1.47 (NIH, USA) (
Fig. 3).
All surgical procedures were performed with patients in prone position in slightly flexion of neck in a Mayfield head fixator. A standard posterior midline approach allowed exposure of the cervical laminae at the targeted operative levels and laterally to the facet joints. Trough preparation in the hinged and opening sides of the laminofacet junction was performed with high-speed drill and Kerrison punch. From rostral to caudal, each lamina was gently lifted using Raney appliers. And after selecting proper size of HA laminar spacer (10mm or 12mm), the selected HA spacer and a malleable titanium miniplate was assembled using a miniscrew(6 mm) (
Fig. 3). Each lamina was secured with the assembled HA spacer and miniplate complex using another miniscrews (6 mm) (
Fig. 4).
Parameters were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Differences were considered significant when p-values were <0.05. All results are expressed as mean±Standard deviation (SD). Analyses were performed using the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).
RESULTS
The 38 patients who underwent 'modified unilateral opendoor laminoplasty using HA spacers and malleable titanium miniplates' are summarized in
Table 1. In total, 125 cervical laminae were operated in 38 patients. And the number of laminoplasty levels ranged from 3 to 4 (mean 3.29). Eleven patients received 4-level laminoplasty and 27 patients received 3-level laminoplasty. Of these, 9 patients underwent additional anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) due to marked herniated nucleus pulposus.
The mean operation time was 226.1min (110-465min), and the mean volume of intraoperative blood loss was 715.5 cc (350-1,500 cc). But if excluding the patients with ACDF, the operation time was 185.9 minutes.
1. Clinical Outcome
Postoperatively, the mean Frankel scale was improved from 3.97 to 4.55 (p=0.002) (
Fig. 5). And mean JOA scale was also increased from 12.76 to 14.63 with mean calculated recovery rates of 62.82±40.57%. There was a statistically significant increase of postoperative final visit JOA scale (p<0.001) (
Fig. 5).
Neuroimaging data were obtained in the 38 patients who were followed up more than 6 months postoperatively. Postoperative MR imaging revealed good expansion of dural sac and decompression of spinal cord in minimum follow up period of 1 year in all patients. Postoperative 3-D CT scanning demonstrated reconstructed laminae in satisfactory position (
Fig. 6). There were no implant-related complications such as breakdown or dislocation of HA implants, delayed dural laceration in any case. And stability/fusion of the reconstructed laminae was found at minimum follow up period of 1 year in all patients.
Postoperatively, the overall cervical ROM was changed from 43.93±9.20° to 31.60±10.24° (p<0.001). The percentage of ROM preservation was 73.32±22.39%(
Fig. 7). The lordotic curvature of the cervical spine was decreased from 19.09° to 15.60° (p=0.025). The difference of pre- and postoperative curvature of the cervical spine was ranged -3.50±8.64° (
Fig. 7) Postoperative kyphotic deformity, however, was not observed in our series. The axial dimension of the cervical spinal canal was significantly improved from 1.75±0.48 cm
2 to 2.70±0.58 cm
2 (p<0.001) (
Fig. 7).
DISCUSSION
Laminoplasty is usually classified as open door (single door) or double door (French door)
25). The single open door laminoplasty can be divided into classical suture fixation and titanium miniplate fixation
25). There have been various modifications and supplementary instruments for laminoplasty to maintain hinge patency and provide secure fixation. For example, there are HA spacer, ceramic lamina, miniplate osteosynthesis, and allogenic or autogenous bone grafting
33). The classical suture fixation is not only technically difficult but also do not provide rigid fixation. Furthermore, the neurological deterioration due to re-closure of opened lamina which is associated with cutout, breakage or stretching over time has been reported
8,
25,
28). In one series using only suture fixation, up to 34% of patients demonstrated some degree of re-closure at one or more levels
19). Also, the titanium miniplate fixation has a risk of dislodgement
19). Allogenic or autogenous bone graft and a ceramic block have been used for the maintenance of opened lamina. These spacers have advantages such as a bony healing of the grafted side and maintenance of the laminar arch. But, they have a disadvantage such as root or cord compression due to graft kickout
12,
23,
30).
We found that our surgical technique was relatively easy compared with other techniques such as classical open-door laminoplasty and double-door laminoplasty
5,
8,
9,
24). Because making "small" holes and sutures on the lateral masses in the deep operative field and bone grafting was not necessary, laminoplasty-associated morbidities like graft kickout and spacer dislodgement were not observed in our series.
While laminoplasty can provide sufficient decompression of the cervical spinal cord, preserving the motion of cervical spine, consistent reconstruction of the expanded laminae of the vertebral arches is needed for clinical recovery from the symptoms and to prevent postoperative kyphosis of the cervical spine and adhesion of scar tissue. A sinking or nonunion of the expanded laminae may lead to neurologic regression, segmental motor paralysis. A laminoplasty method should be technically simple, safe and provide immediate strong and rigid fixation. So it is important to successful reconstruction of the lamina after laminoplasty
30).
Though, laminoplasty relatively preserves the posterior elements compared with laminectomy, postoperative decrease of ROM was frequently described
27). There are several reported reasons for decrease of ROM after laminoplasty. Seichi et al. reported that only 22% of preoperative ROM was maintained after laminoplasty. These authors also mentioned that the loss of ROM after laminoplasty was caused by unexpected fusion of the facet joints
29). The high fusion rate in their series may have occurred because they used iliac crest as struts for the laminoplasty.
Machino et al. reported that 88% of preoperative ROM was maintained after a laminoplasty preserving the C2 muscle and active rehabilitation
18). Fujimori et al. reported that ROM preservation rate was 75% in the CSM group, and 61% in the OPLL group. In their study, the loss of ROM was caused mainly by a decrease in the extension angle in both groups. They assumed that this restriction of extension may have occurred partly as a result of impingement of the opened lamina because the spinous processes were preserved in all their cases. Another reason would be scarring of the cervical extension muscles
4). Meyer et al. noted that plated laminoplasty led to a loss of ROM in extension
20). In our study, the percentage of ROM preservation was 73.32±22.39%. We assume that this decrease of ROM may have occurred partly as a result of impingement of the opened lamina and leading to mild restriction of extension.
Recently, several authors have presented new technique of cervical laminoplasty using hydroxyapatite laminar spacers and titanium miniplates. Tanaka et al. reported that hardware failure or screw loosening did not occur during 36.3 months mean follow-up period after a single open door laminoplasty using hydroxyapatite laminar spacers and titanium miniplates in 22 patients
31). Goto et al. reported that hardware failure or screw loosening did not occur during 24.3 months mean follow-up period after a single open door laminoplasty using hydroxyapatite laminar spacers and titanium miniplates in 25 patients
5). We first fixated the lifted lamina with spacer at the laminofacet junction before screw fixation. Due to stable lamina manipulation during the operation, it has less possibility of cord injury and prevents over-lifting of laminae. As it is once more fixed with miniplate, it helps to maintain continuous expansion of lamina. We suggest that it is not only technically safe, but also provides stable reconstruction, which can be an alternative method to avoid re-closure and dislodgement.
The main component of HA spacer is hydroxyl compound of calcium phosphate that produces natural bone matrix. In the last 20 years, it has been used efficiently as oral, plastic, otological and orthopedic surgery instead of bone. It is known to have biocompatibility and safety
5).
Some authors used synthetic HA for cervical interbody fusion
15,
17). Some experimental studies reported successful bone healing around HA by bone ingrowth into the pores and formation of bridging bone on the surface of the implant, proving osteoconduction
1,
32). In comparison with autografts, HA space has many advantages such as good biomechanical stability, reductions in operation time, blood loss, and donor site morbidity
24).
The laminae could be solidly fixed without using the soft malleable miniplates, because there existed no space between bone edge of lamina and HA spacer. Since there is no gap between bone edge of lamina and HA spacer, the laminar space is the main structure that takes the mechanical force compressing laminae vertically or laterally. The spacer was helped to decrease the force to miniplate. Also, malleability of miniplates helped in cutting down the force to screws. Goto et al. described that the screw loosening was more frequently occurred in cases in which only hard miniplates were used for laminar fixation without spacers because the miniplate and screws directly bear the stability of the laminae
5). In our study, we found no implant-related complications in any case documented during the follow-up period.
Our technique has drawbacks, such as additional cost of spacer, supplement time for spacer and plate assembly. Another shortcomings of this study include the small patient population and the brief follow-up duration. Nevertheless, it has advantage compared with 'plate alone technique' and 'spacer alone technique'. HA spacer generates bone healing at the open side of lamina and it can reduce complication due to 'graft kickout' as HA spacer fixed to plate. Future studies, enrolling more patients with longer periods of follow-up, will be necessary to evaluate postoperative axial pain and the longterm stability.
CONCLUSION
Unilateral open-door laminoplasty using HA spacer and miniplates appears to be not only a safe, rapid, and easy procedure but also an efficient method by which to obtain an immediate, rigid stabilization of the posterior elements of the cervical spine after laminoplasty.
REFERENCES
- 1. Akino M. Histological investigation on hydroxyapatite ceramics as materials of artificial bone grafts in the cervical spine. Hokkaido Igaku Zasshi 1991;66:468-481. PMID: 1916625.
- 2. Edwards CC 2nd, Heller JG, Murakami H. Corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched-cohort analysis. Spine 2002;27:1168-1175. PMID: 12045513.
- 3. Frankel HL, Hancock DO, Hyslop G, Melzak J, Michaelis LS, Ungar GH, et al. The value of postural reduction in the initial management of closed injuries of the spine with paraplegia and tetraplegia. I. Paraplegia 1969;7:179-192. PMID: 5360915.
- 4. Fujimori T, Le H, Ziewacz JE, Chou D, Mummaneni PV. Is there a difference in range of motion, neck pain, and outcomes in patients with ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament versus those with cervical spondylosis, treated with plated laminoplasty? Neurosurg Focus 2013;35:E9PMID: 23815254.
- 5. Goto T, Ohata K, Takami T, Nishikawa M, Tsuyuguchi N, Morino M, et al. Hydroxyapatite laminar spacers and titanium miniplates in cervical laminoplasty. J Neurosurg 2002;97:323-329. PMID: 12408386.
- 6. Hamburger C. T-laminoplasty--a surgical approach for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Technical note. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1995;132:131-133. PMID: 7754847.
- 7. Hase H, Watanabe T, Hirasawa Y, Hashimoto H, Miyamoto T, Chatani K, et al. Bilateral open laminoplasty using ceramic laminas for cervical myelopathy. Spine 1991;16:1269-1276. PMID: 1749999.
- 8. Hirabayashi K, Satomi K. Operative procedure and results of expansive open-door laminoplasty. Spine 1988;13:870-876. PMID: 3143157.
- 9. Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, Suzuki N, Satomi K, Ishii Y. Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine 1983;8:693-699. PMID: 6420895.
- 10. Hukuda S, Mochizuki T, Ogata M, Shichikawa K, Shimomura Y. Operations for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. A comparison of the results of anterior and posterior procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1985;67:609-615. PMID: 4030860.
- 11. Itoh T, Tsuji H. Technical improvements and results of laminoplasty for compressive myelopathy in the cervical spine. Spine 1985;10:729-736. PMID: 3909451.
- 12. Kanemura A, Doita M, Iguchi T, Kasahara K, Kurosaka M, Sumi M. Delayed dural laceration by hydroxyapatite spacer causing tetraparesis following double-door laminoplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 2008;8:121-128. PMID: 18248283.
- 13. Katsumi Y, Honma T, Nakamura T. Analysis of cervical instability resulting from laminectomies for removal of spinal cord tumor. Spine 1989;14:1171-1176. PMID: 2603051.
- 14. Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishihara H, Ohmori K, Nakamura H, Kimura T. Minimum 10-year followup after en bloc cervical laminoplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003;129-139. PMID: 12782868.
- 15. Kim P, Wakai S, Matsuo S, Moriyama T, Kirino T. Bisegmental cervical interbody fusion using hydroxyapatite implants: surgical results and long-term observation in 70 cases. J Neurosurg 1998;88:21-27. PMID: 9420068.
- 16. Kohno K, Kumon Y, Oka Y, Matsui S, Ohue S, Sakaki S. Evaluation of prognostic factors following expansive laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Surg Neurol 1997;48:237-245. PMID: 9290710.
- 17. Koyama T, Handa J. Porous hydroxyapatite ceramics for use in neurosurgical practice. Surg Neurol 1986;25:71-73. PMID: 3941972.
- 18. Machino M, Yukawa Y, Hida T, Ito K, Nakashima H, Kanbara S, et al. Cervical alignment and range of motion after laminoplasty: radiographical data from more than 500 cases with cervical spondylotic myelopathy and a review of the literature. Spine 2012;37:E1243-E1250. PMID: 22739671.
- 19. Matsumoto M, Watanabe K, Tsuji T, Ishii K, Takaishi H, Nakamura M, et al. Risk factors for closure of lamina after open-door laminoplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 2008;9:530-537. PMID: 19035744.
- 20. Meyer SA, Wu JC, Mummaneni PV. Laminoplasty outcomes: is there a difference between patients with degenerative stenosis and those with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament? Neurosurg Focus 2011;30:E9PMID: 21361755.
- 21. Morimoto T, Yamada T, Okumura Y, Kakizaki T, Kawaguchi S, Hiramatsu K, et al. Expanding laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy-spinous process roofing technique. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1996;138:720-725. PMID: 8836288.
- 22. O'Brien MF, Peterson D, Casey AT, Crockard HA. A novel technique for laminoplasty augmentation of spinal canal area using titanium miniplate stabilization. A computerized morphometric analysis. Spine 1996;21:474-483. discussion 484. PMID: 8658252.
- 23. Ono A, Yokoyama T, Numasawa T, Wada K, Toh S. Dural damage due to a loosened hydroxyapatite intraspinous spacer after spinous process-splitting laminoplasty. Report of two cases. J Neurosurg Spine 2007;7:230-235. PMID: 17688065.
- 24. Park JH, Jeon SR. Midline-Splitting Open Door Laminoplasty Using Hydroxyapatite Spacers: Comparison between Two Different Shaped Spacers. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2012;52:27-31. PMID: 22993674.
- 25. Patel CK, Cunningham BJ, Herkowitz HN. Techniques in cervical laminoplasty. Spine J 2002;2:450-455. PMID: 14589270.
- 26. Phillips DG. Surgical treatment of myelopathy with cervical spondylosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1973;36:879-884. PMID: 4753885.
- 27. Ratliff JK, Cooper PR. Cervical laminoplasty: a critical review. J Neurosurg 2003;98:230-238. PMID: 12691377.
- 28. Rhee JM, Register B, Hamasaki T, Franklin B. Plate-only open door laminoplasty maintains stable spinal canal expansion with high rates of hinge union and no plate failures. Spine 2011;36:9-14. PMID: 21192219.
- 29. Seichi A, Takeshita K, Ohishi I, Kawaguchi H, Akune T, Anamizu Y, et al. Long-term results of double-door laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine 2001;26:479-487. PMID: 11242374.
- 30. Tanaka N, Nakanishi K, Fujimoto Y, Sasaki H, Kamei N, Hamasaki T, et al. Expansive laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy with interconnected porous calcium hydroxyapatite ceramic spacers: comparison with autogenous bone spacers. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008;21:547-552. PMID: 19057246.
- 31. Tanaka S, Tashiro T, Gomi A, Ujiie H. Cervical unilateral opendoor laminoplasty with titanium miniplates through newly designed hydroxyapatite spacers. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2011;51:673-677. PMID: 21946737.
- 32. Tracy BM, Doremus RH. Direct electron microscopy studies of the bone-hydroxylapatite interface. J Biomed Mater Res 1984;18:719-726. PMID: 6544773.
- 33. Yang SC, Niu CC, Chen WJ, Wu CH, Yu SW. Open-door laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: good outcome in 12 patients using suture anchor fixation. Acta Orthop 2008;79:62-66. PMID: 18283574.
Fig. 1Hydroxyapatite spacer assembled with titanium miniplate.
Fig. 2Line drawing showing the method of measurement of the cervical curvature and ROM of the cervical spine in the plain radiographs. Two lines are drawn along the posterior borders of C2 and C7 in the neutral (A), flexion (B), and extension (C) positions. The angle formed at the crossing point of these two lines is measured in each position. The angle in neutral position is expressed as cervical curvature (α), and the sum of cervical curvatures at maximum flexion (β), and maximum extension (γ) as the ROM. ROM; Range of motion.
Fig. 3Spinal canal dimension measurements (inside the black line) in axial CT images: Preoperative (A) and postoperative (B) axial CT images.
Fig. 4Intraoperative photo of four-level unilateral open-door laminoplasty.
Fig. 5Clinical outcomes in Frankel and JOA scales compared between preoperative and final visit. JOA; Japanese Orthopaedic Association.
Fig. 6Representative sagittal T2-weighted MR images of operated patient obtained from preoperatively (A) and postoperatively (B). Follow up 3-D CT scan (C) confirmed properly inter-positioned hydroxyapatite spacers at C3, C4, and C5.
Fig. 7Radiological outcomes compared between preoperative and final follow up CT and radiographs. ROM; Range of motion.
Table 1.Basal characteristics of 38 patients who underwent modified open-door laminoplasty using hydroxyapatite spacers and miniplates
Table 1.
|
Characteristics |
All n=38 |
|
Age, mean (SD) |
55.2 (8.4) |
|
Male:Female |
29:9 |
|
Diagnosis |
|
|
CSM |
23 |
|
OPLL |
15 |
|
Follow-Up period (month) (SD) |
14.4 (7.8) |
|
Number of laminoplasty levels (SD) |
3.29 (0.46) |
|
3-level laminoplasty |
27 |
|
4-level laminoplasty |
11 |
|
Mean operation time (minute) (SD) |
226.1 (94.1) |
|
Mean volume of intraoperative blood loss (cc) (SD) |
715.5 (309.4) |
