Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-04-2017 | Original Article

Double-door cervical laminoplasty with suture anchors: evaluation of the clinical performance of the constructs

Authors: Takashi Fujishiro, Atsushi Nakano, Ichiro Baba, Shingo Fukumoto, Yoshiharu Nakaya, Masashi Neo

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 4/2017

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to investigate the clinical performance of the constructs of double-door cervical laminoplasty with suture anchors by examining bony fusion at the hinges and lamina closure.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed computed tomography (CT) scans obtained preoperatively, immediately after the operation, and at follow-up of patients who underwent cervical laminoplasty using suture anchors. Hinge fracture, bony healing at the hinges, suture anchor failure, and the lamina angle (LA) were evaluated using CT. Lamina closure was defined as an LA <55° at follow-up.

Results

A total of 226 laminae and hinges from 37 patients were evaluated. CT scans immediately after the operation revealed that 13 laminae (5.8 %) were fractured, one of which collapsed into the spinal canal. Bony fusion at an average of 12.7 months after the operation was noted at 222 hinges (98.2 %), which was not affected by hinge fracture. One dislodged suture anchor was identified. The mean LAs were 34.4 ± 4.2° preoperatively, 87.4 ± 12.3° immediately after the operation, and 82.5 ± 12.9° at follow-up. At follow-up, four cases of lamina closure were identified (1.8 %), and the closure rate was significantly higher at C3 than at the other levels, although it was not affected by age, sex, causative disease, cervical alignment, suture anchor use, and hinge fracture.

Conclusions

The constructs of double-door cervical laminoplasty with suture anchors are stable with a high rate of fusion at the hinges. However, if the procedure is performed at C3, special modifications should be made to avoid lamina closure.

Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K et al (1983) Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine 8:693–699CrossRefPubMed

Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishihara H et al (2003) Minimum 10-year followup after en bloc cervical laminoplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 411:129–139. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000069889.31220.62 CrossRef

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

Matsumoto M, Watanabe K, Hosogane N et al (2012) Impact of lamina closure on long-term outcomes of open-door laminoplasty in patients with cervical myelopathy. Spine 37:1288–1291. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182498434 CrossRefPubMed

Matsumoto M, Watanabe K, Tsuji T et al (2008) Risk factors for closure of lamina after open-door laminoplasty: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 9:530–537. doi:10.3171/SPI.2008.4.08176 CrossRefPubMed

Duetzmann S, Cole T, Ratliff JK (2015) Cervical laminoplasty developments and trends, 2003–2013: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine 23:24–34. doi:10.3171/2014.11.SPINE14427 CrossRefPubMed

Tanaka N, Nakanishi K, Fujimoto Y et al (2008) Expansive laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy with interconnected porous calcium hydroxyapatite ceramic spacers: comparison with autogenous bone spacers. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:547–552. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e31815c85bd CrossRefPubMed

Chen H, Liu H, Zou L et al (2014) Effect of Mini-plate fixation on hinge fracture and bony fusion in unilateral open-door cervical expansive laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000131

Rhee JM, Register B, Hamasaki T et al (2011) Plate-only open door laminoplasty maintains stable spinal canal expansion with high rates of hinge union and no plate failures. Spine 36:9–14CrossRefPubMed

10.

Miyata M, Neo M, Fujibayashi S et al (2008) Double-door cervical laminoplasty with the use of suture anchors. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:575–578. doi:10.1097/bsd.0b013e31815cb1ba CrossRefPubMed

11.

Wang JM, Roh KJ, Kim DJ et al (1998) A new method of stabilising the elevated laminae in open-door laminoplasty using an anchor system. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80-B:1005–1008CrossRef

12.

Yu H-L, Xiang L-B, Liu J et al (2010) Laminoplasty using Twinfix suture anchors to maintain cervical canal expansion. Eur Spine J 19:1795–1798. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1419-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Kanemura A, Doita M, Iguchi T et al (2008) Delayed dural laceration by hydroxyapatite spacer causing tetraparesis following double-door laminoplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 8:121–128. doi:10.3171/SPI/2008/8/2/121 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Kurokawa Y, Yokoyama Y, Kuroda K et al (2014) Biomechanical evaluation of the suture anchors used in open-door laminoplasty. Spine 39:E1248–E1255. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000522 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Xia Y, Xia Y, Shen Q et al (2011) Influence of hinge position on the effectiveness of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:514–520. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182064632 PubMed

16.

Takeshita K, Murakami M, Kobayashi A et al (2001) Relationship between cervical curvature index (Ishihara) and cervical spine angle (C2–7). J Orthop Sci 6:223–226. doi:10.1007/s0077610060223 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Wang X-Y, Dai L-Y, Xu H-Z et al (2006) Prediction of spinal canal expansion following cervical laminoplasty: a computer-simulated comparison between single and double-door techniques. Spine 31:2863–2870. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000245851.55012.f1 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Kohno K, Kumon Y, Oka Y et al (1997) Evaluation of prognostic factors following expansive laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Surg Neurol 48:237–245. doi:10.1016/S0090-3019(97)00166-3 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Hamburger C, Büttner A, Uhl E (1997) The cross-sectional area of the cervical spinal canal in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Correlation of preoperative and postoperative area with clinical symptoms. Spine 22:1990–1994CrossRefPubMed

20.

Takeuchi K, Yokoyama T, Aburakawa S et al (2005) Anatomic study of the semispinalis cervicis for reattachment during laminoplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:126–131. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000160710.11991.33 CrossRef

21.

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 30:2544–2549CrossRefPubMed

22.

Iizuka H, Iizuka Y, Nakagawa Y et al (2006) Interlaminar bony fusion after cervical laminoplasty: its characteristics and relationship with clinical results. Spine 31:644–647. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000203707.79269.6a CrossRefPubMed

23.

Lee S, Chung C, Kim C (2015) Risk factor analysis of hinge fusion failure after plate-only open-door laminoplasty. Global Spine J 5:9–16. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1394128 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Park JH, Roh SW, Rhim SC et al (2012) Long-term outcomes of 2 cervical laminoplasty methods: midline splitting versus unilateral single door. J Spinal Disord Tech 25:E224–E229. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e31825dda6b CrossRefPubMed

25.

Nakashima H, Kato F, Yukawa Y et al (2014) Comparative effectiveness of open-door laminoplasty versus French-door laminoplasty in cervical compressive myelopathy. Spine 39:642–647. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000252 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Double-door cervical laminoplasty with suture anchors: evaluation of the clinical performance of the constructs
Authors: Takashi Fujishiro
Atsushi Nakano
Ichiro Baba
Shingo Fukumoto
Yoshiharu Nakaya
Masashi Neo
Publication date: 01-04-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4666-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Double-door cervical laminoplasty with suture anchors: evaluation of the clinical performance of the constructs

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Erratum to: Impact of old age on patient-report outcomes and cost utility for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery for degenerative spine disease

10-year follow-up after implantation of the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis

Cervical sagittal deformity develops after PJK in adult thoracolumbar deformity correction: radiographic analysis utilizing a novel global sagittal angular parameter, the CTPA

Development of a new assessment tool for cervical myelopathy using hand-tracking sensor: Part 1: validity and reliability

Clinical analysis of C5 palsy after cervical decompression surgery: relationship between recovery duration and clinical and radiological factors

Erratum to: First clinical results of minimally invasive vector lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-VLIF) in spondylodiscitis and concomitant osteoporosis: a technical note