» Articles » PMID: 24503689

Comparative Effectiveness of Open-door Laminoplasty Versus French-door Laminoplasty in Cervical Compressive Myelopathy

Overview
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2014 Feb 8
PMID 24503689
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Study Design: Prospective randomized study.

Objective: This study aimed to prospectively compare the surgical results of the open- and French-door laminoplasty.

Summary Of Background Data: Cervical laminoplasty is a common surgical procedure for the treatment of cervical compressive myelopathy. These procedures are primarily classified as either open- or French-door laminoplasties. Only few prospective studies comparing the surgical results of the 2 procedures are available.

Methods: A total of 92 patients with cervical compressive myelopathy who underwent cervical laminoplasty were prospectively enrolled and randomized into the following 2 groups according to the type of laminoplasty: open-door and French-door groups. A single attending spine surgeon performed all surgical procedures. The following factors were evaluated: surgical duration, blood loss, perioperative complications, neurological assessment using the Japanese Orthopedic Association score, and recovery rate. Radiological evaluations included assessment of the cervical lordotic angle and cervical range of motion. In addition, the ratio of postoperative spinal lamina opening was evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging.

Results: There were no differences in perioperative complications and neurological outcomes between the 2 groups. The mean reduction in cervical lordotic angle after surgery was significantly greater in the open-door group than the French-door group (3.0° vs. 5.6°). Postoperative cervical range of motion significantly decreased in the open-door group than in the French-door group (19.3° vs. 26.0°). Postoperative cervical lordotic angle in the extension position significantly diminished in the open-door group than in the French-door group (7.9° vs. 14.1°). The ratio of opening of the spinal lamina after surgery was significantly larger in the open-door group than in the French-door group.

Conclusion: The 2 laminoplasty methods showed almost the same neurological recovery as well as perioperative complications. In cases of open-door laminoplasty, postoperative cervical alignment became more kyphotic and cervical range of motion was more restricted than that in French-door laminoplasty cases after surgery. French-door laminoplasty is preferable to open-door laminoplasty for postoperative cervical alignments.

Level Of Evidence: 1.

Citing Articles

Preliminarily exploring the intraoperative ultrasonography characteristics of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy.

Liu W, Li J, Shu T, Ji Q, Wang X, Li R BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024; 25(1):538.

PMID: 38997705 PMC: 11241984. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07601-z.


Comparison of Postoperative Pain and Surgical Outcomes Between Three Types of Modified Muscle-Sparing Laminoplasty and Conventional Laminoplasty for Multilevel Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy.

Wang B, Qu R, Liu Z, Zhao N, Pan S, Chen X Global Spine J. 2024; :21925682241265625.

PMID: 38910265 PMC: 11571585. DOI: 10.1177/21925682241265625.


Comparison of Surgical Outcomes After Posterior Decompression by Junior or Senior Surgeons for Patients With Cervical Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament: Results From Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

Okubo T, Nagoshi N, Kono H, Kobayashi Y, Tsuji O, Aoyama R Global Spine J. 2024; :21925682241260725.

PMID: 38831702 PMC: 11571981. DOI: 10.1177/21925682241260725.


An innovative approach to assess spinal canal expansion following French-door cervical laminoplasty by intraoperative ultrasonography.

Lin C, Chen G, Li J, Shi L, Zhu Z, Wei F Eur Radiol. 2023; 34(2):736-744.

PMID: 37581658 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-10032-4.


Comparison of Midline Splitting versus Unilateral Open Door Laminoplasty and Its Impact on Patient Outcomes.

Kim N, Cho S, Kim T, Oh J, Moon S, Kim S Clin Orthop Surg. 2023; 15(3):444-453.

PMID: 37274492 PMC: 10232316. DOI: 10.4055/cios22387.