Anterior Corpectomy Versus Posterior Laminoplasty for Multilevel Cervical Myelopathy: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal Eur Spine J

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2013 Oct 8

PMID 24097230

Citations 51

Authors

Xuzhou Liu

Shaoxiong Min

Hui Zhang

Zhilai Zhou

Hehui Wang

Anmin Jin

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Surgical strategy for multilevel cervical myelopathy resulting from cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) or ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) still remains controversial. There are still questions about the relative benefit and safety of direct decompression by anterior corpectomy (CORP) versus indirect decompression by posterior laminoplasty (LAMP).

Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the results of anterior CORP compared with posterior LAMP for patients with multilevel cervical myelopathy.

Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing anterior CORP with posterior LAMP for the treatment of multilevel cervical myelopathy due to CSM or OPLL from 1990 to December 2012. An extensive search of literature was performed in Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library. The quality of the studies was assessed according to GRADE. The following outcome measures were extracted: pre- and postoperative Japanese orthopedic association (JOA) score, neurological recovery rate (RR), surgical complications, reoperation rate, operation time and blood loss. Two reviewers independently assessed each study for quality and extracted data. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to the mean number of surgical segments.

Results: A total of 12 studies were included in this review, all of which were prospective or retrospective cohort studies with relatively low quality. The results indicated that the mean JOA score system for cervical myelopathy and the neurological RR in the CORP group were superior to those in the LAMP group when the mean surgical segments were <3, but were similar between the two groups in the case of the mean surgical segments equal to 3 or more. There was no statistical difference in the surgical complication rate between the two groups when the mean surgical segments <3, but were significantly higher incidences of surgical complications and complication-related reoperation in the CORP group compared with the LAMP group in the case of the mean surgical segments equal to 3 or more. Besides, the operation time in the CORP group was longer than that in the LAMP group, and the average blood loss was significantly more in the CORP group compared with the LAMP group.

Conclusion: Based on the results above, anterior CORP and fusion is recommended for the treatment of multilevel cervical myelopathy when the involved surgical segments were <3. Given the higher rates of surgical complications and complication-related reoperation and the higher surgical trauma associated with multilevel CORP, however, it is suggested that posterior LAMP may be the preferred method of treatment for multilevel cervical myelopathy when the involved surgical segments were equal to 3 or more. In addition, taking the limitations of this study into consideration, it was still not appropriate to draw a strong conclusion claiming superiority for CORP or LAMP. A well-designed, prospective, randomized controlled trial is necessary to provide objective data on the clinical results of both procedures.

Citing Articles

C7-T1 Full-Endoscopic Posterior Foraminotomy and Sequestrectomy Using Navigation.

Saravanan S, Fournier J, Simonin A Neurospine. 2025; 21(4):1168-1171.

PMID: 39765261 PMC: 11744551. DOI: 10.14245/ns.2449002.501.

Improved Function After Anterior Controllable Antedisplacement and Fusion for Cervical Ossification of Posterior Longitudinal Ligament: A Long-Term Follow-Up.

Shi Y, Sun K, Han L, Yan C, Wang J, Yang J Orthop Surg. 2024; 17(2):416-426.

PMID: 39579009 PMC: 11787986. DOI: 10.1111/os.14300.

Direct anterior decompression in patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament significantly relieves short-segment spinal cord high signal.

Wu Z, Zhang X, Song H, Xu A, Sun B, Xu C BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024; 25(1):872.

PMID: 39482611 PMC: 11526592. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07991-0.

An Algorithmic Roadmap for the Surgical Management of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Narrative Review.

Lee D, Lee H, Riew K Asian Spine J. 2023; 18(2):274-286.

PMID: 38146052 PMC: 11065509. DOI: 10.31616/asj.2023.0413.

Anterior direct decompression significantly relieves spinal cord high signal in patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a case-control study.

Wu Z, Zhang Z, Xu A, Lu S, Cui C, Sun B J Orthop Surg Res. 2023; 18(1):897.

PMID: 38001479 PMC: 10675957. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04388-y.

References

Chen Y, Guo Y, Lu X, Chen D, Song D, Shi J . Surgical strategy for multilevel severe ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010; 24(1):24-30. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181c7e91e. View

Lee S, Ahn Y, Lee J . Laser-assisted anterior cervical corpectomy versus posterior laminoplasty for cervical myelopathic patients with multilevel ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Photomed Laser Surg. 2008; 26(2):119-27. DOI: 10.1089/pho.2007.2110. View

Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, Maruyama T, Wakano K . Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1981; 6(4):354-64. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-198107000-00005. View

Sakai K, Okawa A, Takahashi M, Arai Y, Kawabata S, Enomoto M . Five-year follow-up evaluation of surgical treatment for cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a prospective comparative study of anterior decompression and fusion with floating method versus laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 37(5):367-76. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31821f4a51. View

Gandhoke G, Wu J, Rowland N, Meyer S, Gupta C, Mummaneni P . Anterior corpectomy versus posterior laminoplasty: is the risk of postoperative C-5 palsy different?. Neurosurg Focus. 2011; 31(4):E12. DOI: 10.3171/2011.8.FOCUS11156. View

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 (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(13):1443-7; discussion 1448. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200107010-00011. View

Hirai T, Okawa A, Arai Y, Takahashi M, Kawabata S, Kato T . Middle-term results of a prospective comparative study of anterior decompression with fusion and posterior decompression with laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36(23):1940-7. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181feeeb2. View

Hosono N, Yonenobu K, Ono K . Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty. A noticeable complication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996; 21(17):1969-73. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199609010-00005. View

Shibuya S, Komatsubara S, Oka S, Kanda Y, Arima N, Yamamoto T . Differences between subtotal corpectomy and laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spinal Cord. 2009; 48(3):214-20. DOI: 10.1038/sc.2009.114. View

10.

Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Sudo H, Takahata M, Nagahama K . Impact of deep extensor muscle-preserving approach on clinical outcome of laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: comparative cohort study. Eur Spine J. 2012; 21(8):1536-44. PMC: 3535256. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2260-9. View

11.

Chen Y, Liu X, Chen D, Wang X, Yuan W . Surgical strategy for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. Orthopedics. 2012; 35(8):e1231-7. DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20120725-25. View

12.

Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann H, Oxman A, Kunz R, Brozek J . GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(4):401-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015. View

13.

Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishiara H, Nobukiyo M, Seki S, Kimura T . Preventive measures for axial symptoms following cervical laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003; 16(6):497-501. DOI: 10.1097/00024720-200312000-00002. View

14.

Edwards 2nd C, Heller J, Murakami H . Corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched-cohort analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002; 27(11):1168-75. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200206010-00007. View

15.

Furlan A, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M . 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(18):1929-41. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b1c99f. View

16.

Sugrue P, McClendon Jr J, Halpin R, Liu J, Koski T, Ganju A . Surgical management of cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: natural history and the role of surgical decompression and stabilization. Neurosurg Focus. 2011; 30(3):E3. DOI: 10.3171/2010.12.FOCUS10283. View

17.

Wang L, Song Y, Liu L, Liu H, Kong Q, Li T . Clinical outcomes of two different types of open-door laminoplasties for cervical compressive myelopathy: a prospective study. Neurol India. 2012; 60(2):210-6. DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.96403. View

18.

Kimura I, Shingu H, Nasu Y . Long-term follow-up of cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated by canal-expansive laminoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995; 77(6):956-61. View

19.

Sakaura H, Hosono N, Mukai Y, Fujimori T, Iwasaki M, Yoshikawa H . Preservation of muscles attached to the C2 and C7 spinous processes rather than subaxial deep extensors reduces adverse effects after cervical laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(16):E782-6. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d34614. View

20.

Fraser J, Hartl R . Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a metaanalysis of fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007; 6(4):298-303. DOI: 10.3171/spi.2007.6.4.2. View