Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Dec 1:8:45.
doi: 10.1186/1749-799X-8-45.

Laminoplasty versus laminectomy for multi-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review of the literature

Lifeng Lao  1 , Guibin Zhong, Xinfeng Li, Lie Qian, Zude Liu
Affiliations

Laminoplasty versus laminectomy for multi-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review of the literature

Lifeng Lao et al. J Orthop Surg Res. .

Abstract

Background: There is considerable controversy as to which posterior technique is best for the treatment of multi-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic results and complications of laminoplasty (LAMP) and laminectomy (LAMT) in the treatment of multi-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Methods: We reviewed and analyzed papers published from January 1966 and June 2013 regarding the comparison of LAMP and LAMT for multi-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Statistical comparisons were made when appropriate.

Results: Fifteen studies were included in this systematic review. There was no significant difference in the incidence of surgical complications between LAMP and LAMT. Compared to conventional LAMT and skip LAMT, postoperative ROM was more limited in LAMP, but this was still superior to postoperative ROM following LAMT with fusion. Postoperative kyphosis occurred in 8/180 (4.44%) in LAMP and 13/205 (6.34%) in LAMT, whereas no cases of kyphosis were reported for skip LAMT. Skip LAMT appears to have better clinical outcomes than LAMP, while the outcome was similar between LAMP and LAMT with fusion.

Conclusions: Based on these results, a claim of superiority for laminoplasty or laminectomy was not justified. In deciding between the two procedures, the risks of surgical and neurological complications, and radiologic and clinical outcome, must be taken into consideration if both options are available in multi-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Sampath P, Bendebba M, Davis JD, Ducker TB. Outcome of patients treated for cervical myelopathy. A prospective, multicenter study with independent clinical review. Spine. 2000;25:670–676. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200003150-00004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Denaro V, Di Martino A. Cervical spine surgery: an historical perspective. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:639–648. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1752-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shiraishi T. Skip laminectomy—a new treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy, preserving bilateral muscular attachments to the spinous processes: a preliminary report. Spine J. 2002;2:108–115. - PubMed
    1. Tsuji H. Laminoplasty for patients with compressive myelopathy due to so-called spinal canal stenosis in cervical and thoracic regions. Spine. 1982;7:28–34. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198200710-00002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ghogawala Z, Coumans JV, Benzel EC, Stabile LM, Barker FG 2nd. Ventral versus dorsal decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgeons' assessment of eligibility for randomization in a proposed randomized controlled trial: results of a survey of the cervical spine research society. Spine. 2007;32:429–436. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000255068.94058.8a. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types