Top

Published in:

01-10-2019 | Original Article

A new method for calculating the desired laminoplasty opening size based on the target sagittal canal diameter before single-door cervical laminoplasty

Authors: Xiao-jiang Yang, Hong-xun Sang, Chen-xin Liu, Zhen-sheng Ma, Bing Meng, Tian-qing Li, Ming-chun Jiang, Xiao-zhong Liu, Wei Lei, Yang Zhang

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 10/2019

Abstract

Purpose

To build a mathematical model which could calculate the desired laminoplasty opening size (LOS) based on the target sagittal canal diameter (SCD) before single-door cervical laminoplasty (SDCL) when taking the effects of surgery drill into consideration.

Methods

The model was based on geometric analysis on deformation of spinal canal; the formula was derived and characterized as: y (mm) = 2 \( \overline{\text{CD}} \) × sin(β/2) = c − d (y is the size of LOS, \( \overline{\text{CD}} \) the size of transverse canal diameter, β the size of laminoplasty opening size, c the size of mini-plate and d the diameter of the drill bit used during the surgery operation). The parameters of pre- and postoperative computed tomography scans of 20 patients who had undergone SDCL were measured by the picture archiving and communication system (PACS) software and a new instrument named as Lei’s ruler, respectively.

Results

The effects of surgery SDCL were very significant; for each patient, the SCD was enlarged dramatically after the surgery (P < 0.01). The differences between the data obtained by PACS and Lei’s ruler were no statistically significant (P > 0.05). According to the derived formula, the 95% confidence intervals of SCD after the surgery were within the range of 14 mm and 14.5 mm.

Conclusion

Applying the mathematical model and derived formula, the desired LOS could be calculated according to the target SCD which could help the surgeon select an optimum mini-plate before SDCL. At the same time, a new measuring device named Lei’s ruler is designed for the convenience of the derived formula.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Available only for authorised users

Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K et al (1983) Expansive ODCL for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine 8(7):693–699CrossRef

Du W, Wang L, Shen Y et al (2013) Long-term impacts of different posterior operations on curvature, neurological recovery and axial symptoms for multilevel cervical degenerative myelopathy. Eur Spine J 22(7):1594–1602CrossRef

Liu Y, Luo X, Zhou J et al (2016) Prognosis of posterior osteophyte after anterior cervical decompression and fusion in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy using three-dimensional computed tomography study. Eur Spine J 25(6):1861–1868CrossRef

Hyun SJ, Riew KD, Rhim SC (2013) Range of motion loss after cervical laminoplasty: a prospective study with minimum 5-year follow-up data. Spine J 13(4):384–390CrossRef

Ogawa Y, Toyama Y, Chiba K et al (2005) Long-term results after expansive open-door laminoplasty for the segmental-type of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine: a comparison with nonregimental-type lesions. J Neurosurg Spine 3(3):198–204CrossRef

Jiang Y, Li XL, Zhou X et al (2017) A prospective randomized trial comparing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus plate-only open-door laminoplasty for the treatment of spinal stenosis in degenerative diseases. Eur Spine J 26(4):1162–1172CrossRef

Matsumoto M, Watanabe K, Hosogane N et al (2012) Impact of lamina closure on long-term outcomes of ODCL in patients with cervical myelopathy: minimum 5-year follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(15):1288–1291CrossRef

Liu X, Chen Y, Yang H et al (2017) Expansive open-door laminoplasty versus laminectomy and instrumented fusion for cases with cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament and straight lordosis. Eur Spine J 26(4):1173–1180CrossRef

Manzano GR, Casella G, Wang MY et al (2012) A prospective, randomized trial comparing expansile cervical laminoplasty and cervical laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy. Neurosurgery 70(2):264–277CrossRef

10.

Yang L, Gu Y, Shi J et al (2013) Modified plate-only ODCL versus laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical stenotic myelopathy. Orthopedics 36(1):e79–e87CrossRef

11.

Uematsu Y, Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H (1998) Radiculopathy after laminoplasty of the cervical spine. Spine 23:2057–2062CrossRef

12.

O’Brien MF, Peterson D, Casey AT et al (1996) A novel technique for laminoplasty augmentation of spinal canal area using titanium miniplate stabilization: a computerized morphometric analysis. Spine 21:474–483CrossRef

13.

Imagama S, Matsuyama Y, Yukawa Y et al (2010) C5 palsy after cervical laminoplasty: a multicentre study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(3):393–400CrossRef

14.

Hatta Y, Shiraishi T, Hase H et al (2005) Is posterior spinal cord shifting by extensive posterior decompression clinically significant for multisegmental cervical spondylotic myelopathy? Spine 30(21):2414–2419CrossRef

15.

Wang XY, Dai LY, Xu HZ et al (2006) Prediction of spinal canal expansion following cervical laminoplasty: a computer-simulated comparison between single and double-door techniques. Spine 31(24):2863–2870CrossRef

16.

Itoh T, Tsuji H (1985) Technical improvements and results of laminoplasty for compressive myelopathy in the cervical spine. Spine 10:729–736CrossRef

17.

Gu Z, Zhang A, Shen Y et al (2015) Relationship between the laminoplasty opening size and the laminoplasty opening angle, increased sagittal canal diameter and the prediction of spinal canal expansion following open-door cervical laminoplasty. Eur Spine J 24(8):1613–1620CrossRef

18.

Yang XJ, Tian RJ, Su X et al (2018) Relationship of actual laminoplasty opening size and increment of the cross-sectional area based on single-door cervical laminoplasy. Medicine 97(12):e0216CrossRef

19.

Nakagawa H, Okazaki T, Saito K (2015) Surgical strategies in management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. World Neurosurg 84:220–221CrossRef

20.

Yuan W, Zhu Y, Liu X et al (2015) Postoperative three-dimensional cervical range of motion and neurological outcomes in patients with cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: cervical laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 134:17–23CrossRef

21.

Chen H, Liu H, Deng Y et al (2016) Multivariate analysis of factors associated with axial symptoms in unilateral expansive open-door cervical laminoplasty with miniplate fixation. Medicine 95(2):e2292CrossRef

22.

Chen H, Liu H, Zou L et al (2016) Effect of mini-plate fixation on hinge fracture and bony fusion in unilateral open-door cervical expansive laminoplasty. Clin Spine Surg 29(6):E288–E295CrossRef

23.

Yeh KT, Yu TC, Chen H et al (2014) Expansive open-door laminoplasty secured with titanium miniplates is a good surgical method for multiple-level cervical stenosis. J Orthop Surg Res 9(1):49CrossRef

24.

Li K, Zhang W, Li B et al (2016) Safety and efficacy of cervical laminoplasty using a piezosurgery device compared with a high-speed drill. Medicine (Baltimore) 95(37):e4913CrossRef

25.

Ghahreman A, Rao PJ, Ferch RD (2009) Dynamic plates in anterior cervical fusion surgery: graft settling and cervical alignment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(15):1567–1571CrossRef

Title: A new method for calculating the desired laminoplasty opening size based on the target sagittal canal diameter before single-door cervical laminoplasty
Authors: Xiao-jiang Yang
Hong-xun Sang
Chen-xin Liu
Zhen-sheng Ma
Bing Meng
Tian-qing Li
Ming-chun Jiang
Xiao-zhong Liu
Wei Lei
Yang Zhang
Publication date: 01-10-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 10/2019
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-05992-5

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

A new method for calculating the desired laminoplasty opening size based on the target sagittal canal diameter before single-door cervical laminoplasty

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Graphical abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Graphical abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2019

Demographics, presentation and symptoms of patients with Klippel-Feil syndrome: analysis of a global patient-reported registry

Management and prognosis of acute traumatic cervical central cord syndrome: systematic review and Spinal Cord Society—Spine Trauma Study Group position statement

Letter to the Editor concerning “The effect of patient positioning on the relative position of the aorta to the thoracic spine” by Plataniotis N, et al. (Eur Spine J; 2019: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5812-9)

Answer to the Letter to the Editor of P. Kent et al. concerning "Predicting a beneficial response to motor control training in patients with low back pain: a longitudinal cohort study" by Hides JA, et al. (Eur Spine J. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06045-7)

Letter to the Editor concerning “The incidence of myocardial infarction after lumbar spine surgery” by Harwin B, Formanek B, Spoonamore M, Robertson D, Buser Z, Wang JC (Eur Spine J. 2019; doi:10.1007/s00586-019-06072-4)

Comparison of a novel anterior-only approach and the conventional posterior–anterior approach for cervical facet dislocation: a retrospective study