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
Review
. 2020 Dec 8;21(1):823.
doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03830-0.

Surgical decision-making for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament versus other types of degenerative cervical myelopathy: anterior versus posterior approaches

Affiliations
Review

Surgical decision-making for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament versus other types of degenerative cervical myelopathy: anterior versus posterior approaches

Suzanna Sum Sum Kwok et al. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. .

Abstract

Background: The debate between anterior or posterior approach for pathologies such as cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) have drawn heated debate but are still inconclusive. A narrative review was performed specifically to study the differences pertaining to OPLL and other causes of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Current evidence suggests that anterior approach is preferred for K-line (-) OPLL, K-line (+) with canal occupying ratio > 60% and DCM with pre-existing cervical kyphosis. Posterior approach is preferred for K-line (+) OPLL with canal-occupying ratio < 50-60%, and multi-level CSM. No particular advantage for either approach was observed for DCM in a lordotic cervical spine. Anterior approach is generally associated with more complications and thus needs to be weighed carefully during decision-making. The evidence is not convincing for comparing single versus multi-level involvement, and the role of patients' co-morbidity status, pre-existing osteoporosis and co-existent spinal pathologies in influencing patient outcome and surgical options. This should be a platform for future research directives.

Conclusion: From this review, evidence is still inconclusive but there are some factors to consider, and DCM and OPLL should be considered separately for decision-making. Anterior approach is considered for pre-existing cervical kyphosis in DCM, for K-line (-) regardless of canal-occupying ratio, and K-line (+) and canal-occupying ratio > 60% for OPLL patients. Posterior approach is considered for patients with multi-level pathology for DCM, and K-line (+) and canal-occupying ratio < 50-60% for OPLL.

Keywords: CSM; Cervical myelopathy; Cervical spine; Cervical spondylotic myelopathy; DCM; Degenerative cervical myelopathy; OPLL; Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

JPYC is a senior board member for BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
T2 weighted MRI image showing a patient with cervical spondylotic myelopathy involving C5-C6 and C6-C7 levels (left) who underwent an anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion from C5-C7. Post-operative AP (middle) and lateral (right) x-ray images show a cage with bone graft stabilizing the C5-C7 segments
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Pre-operative lateral x-ray of a patient with multi-level ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (left) and significant narrowing of spinal canal with myelomalacia at C5-C6 as seen on the T2-weighted MRI (middle). A laminoplasty fixed with miniplates was performed (right)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Spinal canal-occupying ratio calculated by dividing maximal ossification thickness (a) by the anteroposterior spinal canal diameter (b) on axial CT imaging
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Lateral x-ray of a patient with an ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. The black line demonstrates the K-line drawn by linking the mid-point of anteroposterior canal diameter at C2 and C7

References

    1. 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. 2020;4(1):8–17. doi: 10.22603/ssrr.2019-0023. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shigematsu H, Cheung JP, Mak KC, Bruzzone M, Luk KD. Cervical spinal canal stenosis first presenting after spinal cord injury due to minor trauma: An insight into the value of preventive decompression. J Orthop Sci. 2017;22(1):22–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jos.2016.09.008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wu ZK, Zhao QH, Tian JW, Qian YB, Zhou Y, Yang F, et al. Anterior versus posterior approach for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;9:1-18.
    1. Young WF. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a common cause of spinal cord dysfunction in older persons. Am Fam Physician. 2000;62(5):1064–1070. - PubMed
    1. Tang CYK, Cheung KMC, Samartzis D, Cheung JPY. The natural history of ossification of yellow ligament of the thoracic spine on MRI: a population-based cohort study. Global Spine J. 2020. 10.1177/2192568220903766. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms