Advertisement

Segmental cervical instability does not drive the loss of cervical lordosis after laminoplasty in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy

      Abstract

      BACKGROUND/CONTEXT

      Kyphotic deformity after cervical laminoplasty (CLP) often leads to unfavorable neurological recovery due to insufficient indirect decompression of the spinal cord. Existing literature has described that segmental cervical instability is a contraindication for CLP because it is a potential risk factor for kyphotic changes after surgery; however, this has never been confirmed in any clinical studies.

      PURPOSE

      To confirm whether segmental cervical instability was an independent risk factor for postoperative kyphotic change and to examine whether segmental cervical instability led to poor neurological outcomes after CLP for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

      STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

      A retrospective study

      PATIENT SAMPLE

      Patients who underwent CLP for CSM between January 2013 and January 2021 with a follow-up period of ≥1 year were enrolled.

      OUTCOME MEASURES

      Cervical radiographic measurements including C2–C7 lordosis (C2–7 angle), cervical sagittal vertical axis, C7 slope, flexion range of motion (fROM) and extension ROM (eROM) were assessed using neutral and flexion-extension views. Segmental cervical instability was classified into anterolisthesis (AL) of ≥2 mm displacement, retrolisthesis (RL) of ≥2 mm displacement, and translational instability (TI) of ≥3 mm translational motion. The amount of C2–7 angle loss at the follow-up period compared to the preoperative measurements was defined as cervical lordosis loss (CLL). Neurological outcomes were assessed using the recovery rate of the Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA-RR).

      METHODS

      CLL was compared among patients with and without segmental cervical instability. Further, multiple linear regression model for CLL was built for the evaluation with adjustment of the reported risks, including cervical sagittal vertical axis, C7 slope, fROM, eROM, and patient age together with AL, RL, and TI, as independent variables. The JOA-RR was also compared between patients with and without segmental cervical instability.

      RESULTS

      A total of 138 patients (mean age, 68.7 years; 65.9% male) were included in the analysis. AL, RL, and TI were found in 12 (8.7%), 33 (23.9%), and 16 (11.6%) patients, respectively. Comparisons among the groups showed that AL led to greater CLL; however, RL and TI did not. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that greater CLL is significantly associated with greater fROM and smaller eROM (regression coefficient [β]=0.328, 95% confidence interval: 0.178 to 0.478, p<.001; β=−0.372, 95% confidence interval: −0.591 to −0.153, p=.001, respectively). However, there were no significant statistical associations in the AL, RL, and TI. Whereas, patients with AL tended to exhibit lower JOA-RR than those without AL (37.8% vs. 52.0%, p=.108).

      CONCLUSIONS

      Segmental cervical instability is not the definitive driver for loss of cervical lordosis after CLP in patients with CSM; thus, is not a contraindication in and of itself. However, it is necessary to consider the indications for CLP, according to individual cases of patients with AL on baseline radiograph, which is a sign of poor neurological recovery.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The Spine Journal
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Badlani N
        • An H
        Cervical laminoplasty.
        (editor)in: Kim DH Surgical anatomy and techniques to the spine. 2nd ed. Elsevier, Philadelphia2013: 203-213
        • Weinberg DS
        • Rhee JM
        Cervical laminoplasty: indication, technique, complications.
        J Spine Surg. 2020; 6: 290-301https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2020.01.05
        • Liu JK
        • Das K
        Posterior fusion of the subaxial cervical spine: indications and techniques.
        Neurosurg Focus. 2001; 10: E7https://doi.org/10.3171/foc.2001.10.4.8
        • Komotar RJ
        • Mocco J
        • Kaiser MG
        Surgical management of cervical myelopathy: indications and techniques for laminectomy and fusion.
        Spine J. 2006; 6: S252-S267https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2006.04.029
        • Blizzard DJ
        • Caputo AM
        • Sheets CZ
        • Klement MR
        • Michael KW
        • Isaacs RE
        • et al.
        Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of spondylotic cervical myelopathy: short-term follow-up.
        Eur Spine J. 2017; 26: 85-93https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4746-3
        • Lopez WY
        • Goh BC
        • Upadhyaya S
        • Ziino C
        • Georgakas PJ
        • Gupta A
        • et al.
        Laminoplasty-an underutilized procedure for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
        Spine J. 2021; 21: 571-577https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2020.10.021
        • Ng HW
        • Teo EC
        • Lee KK
        • Qiu TX
        Finite element analysis of cervical spinal instability under physiologic loading.
        J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003; 16: 55-65https://doi.org/10.1097/00024720-200302000-00010
        • Patwardhan AG
        • Havey RM
        • Ghanayem AJ
        • Diener H
        • Meade KP
        • Dunlap B
        • et al.
        Load-carrying capacity of the human cervical spine in compression is increased under a follower load.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25: 1548-1554https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200006150-00015
        • Richter M
        • Wilke HJ
        • Kluger P
        • Claes L
        • Puhl W
        Load-displacement properties of the normal and injured lower cervical spine in vitro.
        Eur Spine J. 2000; 9: 104-108https://doi.org/10.1007/s005860050219
        • Murata K
        • Endo K
        • Suzuki H
        • Matsuoka Y
        • Takamatsu T
        • Nishimura H
        • et al.
        Spinal sagittal alignment and trapezoidal deformity in patients with degenerative cervical spondylolisthesis.
        Sci Rep. 2019; 21 (9): 4992https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41079-3
        • Lafage R
        • Challier V
        • Liabaud B
        • Vira S
        • Ferrero E
        • Diebo BG
        • et al.
        Natural head posture in the setting of sagittal spinal deformity.
        Neurosurgery. 2016; 79: 108-115https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000001193
        • Tang JA
        • Scheer JK
        • Smith JS
        • Deviren V
        • Bess S
        • Hart RA
        • et al.
        The impact of standing regional cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes in posterior cervical fusion surgery.
        Neurosurgery. 2012; 71: 662-669https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0b013e31826100c9
        • Hirabayashi S
        • Kitagawa T
        • Yamamoto I
        • Yamada K
        • Kawano H
        Development and achievement of cervical laminoplasty and related studies on cervical myelopathy.
        Spine Surg Relat Res. 2019; 4: 8-17https://doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.2019-0023
        • Suda K
        • Abumi K
        • Ito M
        • Shono Y
        • Kaneda K
        • Fujiya M
        Local kyphosis reduces surgical outcomes of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28: 1258-1262https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000065487.82469.d9
        • Sakai K
        • Yoshii T
        • Hirai T
        • Arai Y
        • Torigoe I
        • Tomori M
        • et al.
        Cervical sagittal imbalance is a predictor of kyphotic deformity after laminoplasty in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients without preoperative kyphotic alignment.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41: 299-305https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001206
        • Chen G
        • Jia M
        • Connel RK
        • Sheng Y
        • Lin C
        • Huang K
        • et al.
        Nomogram for predicting kyphotic deformity after laminoplasty in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients without preoperative kyphotic alignment.
        Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020; 199106284https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.106284
        • Lee BJ
        • Park JH
        • Jeon SR
        • Rhim SC
        • Roh SW
        Importance of the preoperative cross-sectional area of the semispinalis cervicis as a risk factor for loss of lordosis after laminoplasty in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
        Eur Spine J. 2018; 27: 2720-2728https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5726-6
        • Zhang JT
        • Li JQ
        • Niu RJ
        • Liu Z
        • Tong T
        • Shen Y
        Predictors of cervical lordosis loss after laminoplasty in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
        Eur Spine J. 2017; 26: 1205-1210https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-4971-4
        • Kim KR
        • Lee CK
        • Park JY
        • Kim IS
        Preoperative parameters for predicting the loss of lordosis after cervical laminoplasty.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020; 45: 1476-1484https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000004012
        • Lee SH
        • Son DW
        • Lee JS
        • Sung SK
        • Lee SW
        • Song GS
        Does extension dysfunction affect postoperative loss of cervical lordosis in patients who undergo laminoplasty?.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019; 44: E456-E464https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000002887
        • Fujishiro T
        • Nakano A
        • Yano T
        • Nakaya Y
        • Hayama S
        • Usami Y
        • et al.
        Significance of flexion range of motion as a risk factor for kyphotic change after cervical laminoplasty.
        J Clin Neurosci. 2020; 76: 100-106https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2020.04.034
        • Kim BJ
        • Cho SM
        • Hur JW
        • Cha J
        • Kim SH
        Kinematics after cervical laminoplasty: risk factors for cervical kyphotic deformity after laminoplasty.
        Spine J. 2021; (in press)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2021.06.010
        • Fujishiro T
        • Nakano A
        • Baba I
        • Fukumoto S
        • Nakaya Y
        • Neo M
        Double-door cervical laminoplasty with suture anchors: evaluation of the clinical performance of the constructs.
        Eur Spine J. 2017; 26: 1121-1128https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4666-2
        • Usami Y
        • Nakaya Y
        • Hayama S
        • Nakano A
        • Fujishiro T
        • Neo M
        Impact of multifidus muscle swelling on C5 palsy after cervical laminoplasty.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020; 45: E10-E17https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000003205
        • Núñez-Pereira S
        • Hitzl W
        • Bullmann V
        • Meier O
        • Koller H
        Sagittal balance of the cervical spine: an analysis of occipitocervical and spinopelvic interdependence, with C-7 slope as a marker of cervical and spinopelvic alignment.
        J Neurosurg Spine. 2015; 23: 16-23https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.11.SPINE14368
        • Oichi T
        • Oshima Y
        • Taniguchi Y
        • Matsubayashi Y
        • Chikuda H
        • Takeshita K
        • et al.
        Cervical anterolisthesis: a predictor of poor neurological outcomes in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients after cervical laminoplasty.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41: E467-E473https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001277
        • Suzuki A
        • Daubs MD
        • Inoue H
        • Hayashi T
        • Aghdasi B
        • Montgomery SR
        • et al.
        Prevalence and motion characteristics of degenerative cervical spondylolisthesis in the symptomatic adult.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38: E1115-E1120https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e31829b1487
        • Kawasaki M
        • Tani T
        • Ushida T
        • Ishida K
        Anterolisthesis and retrolisthesis of the cervical spine in cervical spondylotic myelopathy in the elderly.
        J Orthop Sci. 2007; 12: 207-213https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-007-1122-5
        • Kimura A
        • Shiraishi Y
        • Inoue H
        • Endo T
        • Takeshita K
        Predictors of persistent axial neck pain after cervical laminoplasty.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018; 43: 10-15https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000002267
        • Sakai Y
        • Matsuyama Y
        • Inoue K
        • Ishiguro N
        Postoperative instability after laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy with spondylolisthesis.
        J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005; 18: 1-5https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000145181.98873.22
        • Kawakami M
        • Tamaki T
        • Ando M
        • Yamada H
        • Matsumoto T
        • Yoshida M
        Preoperative instability does not influence the clinical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated with expansive laminoplasty.
        J Spinal Disord Tech. 2002; 15: 277-283https://doi.org/10.1097/00024720-200208000-00003
        • Shigematsu H
        • Ueda Y
        • Takeshima T
        • Koizumi M
        • Satoh N
        • Matsumori H
        • et al.
        Degenerative spondylolisthesis does not influence surgical results of laminoplasty in elderly cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients.
        Eur Spine J. 2010; 19: 720-725https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1338-5
        • Lafage R
        • Ferrero E
        • Henry JK
        • Challier V
        • Diebo B
        • Liabaud B
        • et al.
        Validation of a new computer-assisted tool to measure spino-pelvic parameters.
        Spine J. 2015; 15: 2493-2502https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.08.067
        • Iyer S
        • Lenke LG
        • Nemani VM
        • Fu M
        • Shifflett GD
        • Albert TJ
        • et al.
        Variations in occipitocervical and cervicothoracic alignment parameters based on age: a prospective study of asymptomatic volunteers using full-body radiographs.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41: 1837-1844https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001644
        • Hirabayashi K
        • Watanabe K
        • Wakano K
        • Suzuki N
        • Satomi K
        • Ishii Y
        Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983; 8: 693-699https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198310000-00003
        • Kubo S
        • Goel VK
        • Yang SJ
        • Tajima N
        The biomechanical effects of multilevel posterior foraminotomy and foraminotomy with double-door laminoplasty.
        J Spinal Disord Tech. 2002; 15: 477-485https://doi.org/10.1097/00024720-200212000-00008
        • Baisden J
        • Voo LM
        • Cusick JF
        • Pintar FA
        • Yoganandan N
        Evaluation of cervical laminectomy and laminoplasty. A longitudinal study in the goat model.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999; 24: 1283-1288https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199907010-00003
        • Fields MJ
        • Hoshijima K
        • Feng AH
        • Richardson WJ
        • Myers BS
        A biomechanical, radiologic, and clinical comparison of outcome after multilevel cervical laminectomy or laminoplasty in the rabbit.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25: 2925-2931https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200011150-00015
        • Duetzmann S
        • Cole T
        • Ratliff JK
        Cervical laminoplasty developments and trends, 2003-2013: a systematic review.
        J Neurosurg Spine. 2015; 23: 24-34https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.11.spine14427
        • 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37: E1243-E1245https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3182659d3e
        • Mihara H
        • Ohnari K
        • Hachiya M
        • Kondo S
        • Yamada K
        Cervical myelopathy caused by C3-C4 spondylosis in elderly patients: a radiographic analysis of pathogenesis.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25: 796-800https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200004010-00006
        • Tanaka N
        • Nakanishi K
        • Fujimoto Y
        • Sasaki H
        • Kamei N
        • Hamasaki T
        • et al.
        Clinical results of cervical myelopathy in patients older than 80 years of age: evaluation of spinal function with motor evoked potentials.
        J Neurosurg Spine. 2009; 11: 421-426https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.4.spine08584
        • Machino M
        • Yukawa Y
        • Hida T
        • Ito K
        • Nakashima H
        • Kanbara S
        • et al.
        Can elderly patients recover adequately after laminoplasty?: a comparative study of 520 patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37: 667-671https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e31823147c9
        • Matsuda Y
        • Shibata T
        • Oki S
        • Kawatani Y
        • Mashima N
        • Oishi H
        Outcome of surgical treatment for cervical myelopathy in patients more than 75 years of age.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999; 24: 529-534https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199903150-00005
        • Epstein JA
        • Carras R
        • Epstein BS
        • Levine LS
        Myelopathy in cervical spondylosis with vertebral subluxation and hyperlordosis.
        J Neurosurg. 1970; 32: 421-426https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1970.32.4.0421
        • Fujishiro T
        • Hayama S
        • Obo T
        • Nakaya Y
        • Nakano A
        • Usami Y
        • et al.
        Gap between flexion and extension ranges of motion: a novel indicator to predict the loss of cervical lordosis after laminoplasty in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
        J Neurosurg Spine. 2021; 35: 8-17https://doi.org/10.3171/2020.10.spine201723
        • Choi I
        • Roh SW
        • Rhim SC
        • Jeon SR
        The time course of cervical alignment after cervical expansive laminoplasty: determining optimal cut-off preoperative angle for predicting postoperative kyphosis.
        Medicine (Baltimore). 2018; 97: e13335https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000013335