Top

Published in:

01-03-2008 | Original Article

Limitation of activities of daily living accompanying reduced neck mobility after laminoplasty preserving or reattaching the semispinalis cervicis into axis

Authors: Kazunari Takeuchi, Toru Yokoyama, Atsushi Ono, Takuya Numasawa, Kanichiro Wada, Taito Itabashi, Satoshi Toh

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 3/2008

Abstract

Although difficulties with neck mobility often interfere with patients’ activities of daily living (ADL) after cervical laminoplasty, there was no detailed study on the relation between the limitations of ADL accompanying postoperative reduced neck mobility and the cervical posterior approach. The aim of this study was to compare retrospectively the frequency of limitations of ADL accompanying neck mobility after laminoplasty preserving the semispinalis cervicis inserted into the C2 spinous process with that after laminoplasty reattaching the muscle to C2. Forty-nine patients after C4–C7 laminoplasty with C3 laminectomy preserving the semispinalis cervicis inserted into C2 (Group A) and 24 patients after C3–C7 laminoplasty reattaching the muscle (Group B) were evaluated. The frequency of postoperative limitations of ADL accompanying each of three neck movements of extension, flexion and rotation were investigated. The postoperative O–C7 angles at extension and flexion was measured on lateral extension and flexion radiographs of the cervical spine, respectively. The postoperative cervical range of motion in rotation was measured in the cranial view using a digital camera. Frequency of limitations of ADL accompanying extension was lower (P = 0.037) in Group A (2%) than in Group B (17%). Frequency of limitations of ADL accompanying flexion was similar in Group A (8%) and Group B (4%). Frequency of limitations of ADL accompanying rotation was lower (P = 0.031) in Group A (12%) than in Group B (33%). Average O–C7 angle at extension was significantly larger (P = 0.002) in Group A (147°) than in Group B (136°). Average O–C7 angle at flexion was similar in Group A (93°) and Group B (91°). Average range of motion in rotation was significantly larger (P = 0.004) in Group A (110°) than in Group B (91°). This retrospective study suggested that the frequency of limitations of ADL accompanying neck extension or rotation was lower after laminoplasty preserving the semispinalis cervicis inserted into C2 than after laminoplasty reattaching the muscle.

Baba H, Mezawa Y, Furusawa N et al (1995) Flexibility and alignment of the cervical spine after laminoplasty for spondylotic myelopathy: a radiographic study. Int Orthop 19:116–121PubMed

Bartko JJ (1966) The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychol Rep 19:3–11PubMed

Chiba K, Toyama Y, Matsumoto M et al (2002) Segmental motor paralysis after expensive open-door laminoplasty. Spine 19:2108–2115CrossRef

Conley MS, Meyer RA, Bloomberg JJ et al (1995) Noninvasive analysis of human neck muscle function. Spine 20:2505–2512PubMedCrossRef

Conley MS, Stone MH, Nimmons M et al (1997) Specificity of resistance training responses in neck muscle size and strength. Eur J Appl Physiol 75:443–448CrossRef

Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K et al (1981) Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine 6:354–364PubMedCrossRef

Hosono N, Yonenobu K, Ono K (1996) Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty: a noticeable complication. Spine 21:1969–1973PubMedCrossRef

Iizuka H, Shimizu T, Tateno K et al (2001) Extensor musculature of the cervical spine after laminoplasty: morphologic evaluation by coronal view of the magnetic resonance image. Spine 26:2220–2226PubMedCrossRef

Iwasaki M, Kawaguchi Y, Kimura T et al (2002) Long-term of expensive laminoplasty for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine: more than 10 years follow up. J Neurosurg 96 (2 Suppl):180–189PubMed

10.

Iwaya D, Harata S, Ueyama K et al (1999) Long term follow-up results of surgical treatments of cervical ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament in terms of quality of life (in Japanese). Rinsho Seikeigeka 34:503–508

11.

Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishihara H et al (2003) Preventive measures for axial symptoms following cervical laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord 16:497–501CrossRef

12.

Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishihara H et al (2003) Minimum 10-year followup after en bloc cervical laminoplasty. Clin Orthop 294:129–139

13.

Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Ishihara H et al (2000) Surgical outcome of cervical expansive laminoplasty in patients with diabetes mellitus. Spine 25:551–555PubMedCrossRef

14.

Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Ishihara H et al (1999) Axial symptoms after en bloc cervical laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord 12:392–395PubMedCrossRef

15.

Kimura I, Shingu H, Nasu Y et al (1995) Lon-term follow-up of cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated by canal-expansive laminoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 77B:956–961

16.

Komagata M, Nishiyama M, Endo K et al (2004) Prophylaxis of C5 palsy after cervical expansive laminoplasty by bilateral partial foraminotomy. Spine J 4:650–655PubMedCrossRef

17.

Minoda Y, Nakamura H, Konishi S et al (2003) Palsy of the C5 nerve root after midsagittal-splitting laminoplasty of the cervical spine. Spine 28:1123–1127PubMedCrossRef

18.

Nakano K, Harata S, Suetsuna F et al (1992) Spinous process-splitting laminoplasty using hydroxyapatite spinous process spacer. Spine 17:S41–43PubMedCrossRef

19.

Nolan JP Jr, Sherk HH (1988) Biomechanical evaluation of the extensor musculature of the cervical spine. Spine 13:9–11PubMedCrossRef

20.

Ogawa Y, Chiba K, Matsumoto M 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 nonsegmental-type lesions. J Neurosurg 3:198–204

21.

Sasai K, Saito T, Araki S et al (2000) Cervical curvature after laminoplasty for spondylotic myelopathy - involvement of yellow ligament, semispinalis cervicis muscle, and nuchal ligament. J Spinal Disord 13:26–30PubMedCrossRef

22.

Satomi K, Nishu Y, Kohno T et al (1994) Long-term follow-up studies of open-door expansive laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine 19:507–510PubMedCrossRef

23.

Seichi A, Takeshita K, Ohishi I et al (2001) Long-term results of double-door laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine 26:479–487PubMedCrossRef

24.

Shiraishi T, Fukuda K, Yato Y et al (2003) Results of skip laminectomy-Minimum 2-year follow-up study compared with open-door laminoplasty. Spine 28:2667–2672PubMedCrossRef

25.

Takeuchi K, Yokoyama T, Aburakawa S et al (2005) Axial symptoms after cervical laminoplasty with C3 laminectomy compared with conventional C3–C7 laminoplasty: a modified laminoplasty preserving the semispinalis cervicis inserted into axis. Spine 30:2544–2549PubMedCrossRef

26.

Tomita K, Kawahara N, Toribatake Y et al (1998) Expansive midline T-saw laminoplasty (modified spinous-splitting) for the management of cervical myelopathy. Spine 23:32–37PubMedCrossRef

27.

Vasabada AN, Li S, Delp SL (1998) Influence of muscle morphometry and moment arms on the moment-generating capacity of human neck muscles. Spine 23:412–22CrossRef

28.

Wada E, Suzuki S, Kanazawa A et al (2001) Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a long-term follow-up study over 10 years. Spine 26:1443–1447PubMedCrossRef

29.

Yokoyama T, Takeuchi K, Aburakawa S et al (2004) The controversial points in cervical laminoplasty for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: in comparison with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (in Japanese). Bessatsu Seikeigeka 45:215–220

30.

Yoshida M, Otani K, Shibasaki K et al (1992) Expansive laminoplasty with reattachment of spinous process and extensor musculature for cervical myelopathy. Spine 17:491–497PubMedCrossRef

31.

Yoshida M, Tamaki T, Kawakami M et al (2002) Does reconstruction of posterior ligamentous complex with extensor musculature decrease axial symptoms after cervical laminoplasty? Spine 27:1414–1418PubMedCrossRef

Title: Limitation of activities of daily living accompanying reduced neck mobility after laminoplasty preserving or reattaching the semispinalis cervicis into axis
Authors: Kazunari Takeuchi
Toru Yokoyama
Atsushi Ono
Takuya Numasawa
Kanichiro Wada
Taito Itabashi
Satoshi Toh
Publication date: 01-03-2008
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 3/2008
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0553-1

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Limitation of activities of daily living accompanying reduced neck mobility after laminoplasty preserving or reattaching the semispinalis cervicis into axis

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2008

A demineralized calf vertebra model as an alternative to classic osteoporotic vertebra models for pedicle screw pullout studies

Announcements

A screening questionnaire to predict no return to work within 3 months for low back pain claimants

Presymptomatic spondylotic cervical myelopathy: an updated predictive model

Preventing peridural fibrosis with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

The distribution of mineral density in the cervical vertebral endplates