Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Open-Door Laminoplasty, French-Door Laminoplasty, Laminectomy and Fusion, and Laminectomy Alone for Multilevel Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Bayesian Network Analysis

Author(s):  
Xian Li ◽  
Hui Yu ◽  
Kristian Welle ◽  
Martin Gathen ◽  
Li Zhang ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (19) ◽  
pp. 3348-3352
Author(s):  
I Gusti Lanang Ngurah Agung Artha Wiguna ◽  
Rahadyan Magetsari ◽  
Zairin Noor ◽  
Suyitno Suyitno ◽  
Ricvan Dana Nindrea

BACKGROUND: At present, few reports are comparing these 2 major cervical posterior laminoplasty methods with Open-door and French-door Laminoplasty in terms of neurological recovery, cervical alignment, and surgical complications. Moreover, most of the research has not been well designed. AIM: This study aims to determine comparative effectiveness and functional outcome of open-door versus french-door laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy. METHODS: The Meta-analysis is used in this study. The study sample is a published research articles on comparative effectiveness and functional outcome of open-door versus french-door laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy on the internet through databases on PubMed and ProQuest and published between 1997 until December 2018. Weighted mean difference and pooled weighted mean difference are calculated by using the fixed-effect model or random-effect model. Data is processed by using Review Manager 5.3 (RevMan 5.3). RESULTS: This study reviews 58 articles. There are 6 studies conducted a systematic review and continued with Meta-analysis of relevant data. The results showed significant higher postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score in open-door laminoplasty (ODL) than French-door laminoplasty (FDL) (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35 to 1.07; p < 0.05). The outcome of procedures treatment of multilevel cervical myelopathy revealed the operative time, cervical range of motion, axial canal diameter postoperative, axial pain reduction and complications events in ODL and FDL there was no significant difference. But for a cervical lordotic angle in ODL and FDL, there was a significant difference; the ODL group were significantly lesser than the FDL group. The recovery rate in ODL and FDL, there was a significant difference; the ODL was shown to be significantly higher than FDL (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that neither cervical laminoplasty approach is superior, based on the postoperative radiological data and complication rate. But the open-door laminoplasty resulted in a higher functional outcome and recovery rate as compared to the French-door laminoplasty.


Author(s):  
Gregor Schmeiser ◽  
Janina Isabel Bergmann ◽  
Luca Papavero ◽  
Ralph Kothe

Abstract Objective We compared open-door laminoplasty via a unilateral approach and additional unilateral lateral mass screw fixation (uLP) with laminectomy and bilateral lateral mass screw fixation (LC) in the surgical treatment of multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy (mDCM). Methods A retrospective cohort analysis of 46 prospectively enrolled patients (23 uLP and 23 LC). The minimum follow-up was 1 year. Neck and arm pains were evaluated with visual analog scales and disability with the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Myelopathy was rated with the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score. Cervical sagittal parameters were measured on plain and functional X-ray films with a specific software. The statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Fusion was defined as <2 degrees of intersegmental motion on flexion/extension radiographs. Results The two groups were similar in age and comorbidities. The mean operation time and the mean hospital stay were shorter in the uLP group (p = 0.015). The intraoperative blood loss did not exceed 200 mL in both groups. At follow-up, the groups showed comparable clinical outcome data. The sagittal profile did not deteriorate in either group. Fusion rates were 67% in the uLP group and 92% in the LC group. No infections occurred in either group. In the LC group, one patient developed a transient C5 palsy. Revision surgery was required for a malpositioned screw (LC) and for one implant failure (uLP). Conclusion Laminoplasty and unilateral fixation via a unilateral approach achieved comparable clinical and radiologic results with laminectomy and bilateral fixation, despite a lower fusion rate. However, the surgical traumatization was less.


2021 ◽  
Vol 91 ◽  
pp. 101995
Author(s):  
Yue Wang ◽  
Collin Wai Hung Wong ◽  
Tommy King-Yin Cheung ◽  
Edmund Yangming Wu

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822199740
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Dettori

Fehlings MG, Badhiwala JH, Ahn H, et al. Safety and efficacy of riluzole in patients undergoing decompressive surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy (CSM-Protect): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2020.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 1214
Author(s):  
Ji Tu ◽  
Jose Vargas Castillo ◽  
Abhirup Das ◽  
Ashish D. Diwan

Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), earlier referred to as cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), is the most common and serious neurological disorder in the elderly population caused by chronic progressive compression or irritation of the spinal cord in the neck. The clinical features of DCM include localised neck pain and functional impairment of motor function in the arms, fingers and hands. If left untreated, this can lead to significant and permanent nerve damage including paralysis and death. Despite recent advancements in understanding the DCM pathology, prognosis remains poor and little is known about the molecular mechanisms underlying its pathogenesis. Moreover, there is scant evidence for the best treatment suitable for DCM patients. Decompressive surgery remains the most effective long-term treatment for this pathology, although the decision of when to perform such a procedure remains challenging. Given the fact that the aged population in the world is continuously increasing, DCM is posing a formidable challenge that needs urgent attention. Here, in this comprehensive review, we discuss the current knowledge of DCM pathology, including epidemiology, diagnosis, natural history, pathophysiology, risk factors, molecular features and treatment options. In addition to describing different scoring and classification systems used by clinicians in diagnosing DCM, we also highlight how advanced imaging techniques are being used to study the disease process. Last but not the least, we discuss several molecular underpinnings of DCM aetiology, including the cells involved and the pathways and molecules that are hallmarks of this disease.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document