Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anterior corpectomy versus posterior laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Surgical strategy for multilevel cervical myelopathy resulting from cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) or ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) still remains controversial. There are still questions about the relative benefit and safety of direct decompression by anterior corpectomy (CORP) versus indirect decompression by posterior laminoplasty (LAMP).

Objective

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the results of anterior CORP compared with posterior LAMP for patients with multilevel cervical myelopathy.

Methods

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing anterior CORP with posterior LAMP for the treatment of multilevel cervical myelopathy due to CSM or OPLL from 1990 to December 2012. An extensive search of literature was performed in Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library. The quality of the studies was assessed according to GRADE. The following outcome measures were extracted: pre- and postoperative Japanese orthopedic association (JOA) score, neurological recovery rate (RR), surgical complications, reoperation rate, operation time and blood loss. Two reviewers independently assessed each study for quality and extracted data. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to the mean number of surgical segments.

Results

A total of 12 studies were included in this review, all of which were prospective or retrospective cohort studies with relatively low quality. The results indicated that the mean JOA score system for cervical myelopathy and the neurological RR in the CORP group were superior to those in the LAMP group when the mean surgical segments were <3, but were similar between the two groups in the case of the mean surgical segments equal to 3 or more. There was no statistical difference in the surgical complication rate between the two groups when the mean surgical segments <3, but were significantly higher incidences of surgical complications and complication-related reoperation in the CORP group compared with the LAMP group in the case of the mean surgical segments equal to 3 or more. Besides, the operation time in the CORP group was longer than that in the LAMP group, and the average blood loss was significantly more in the CORP group compared with the LAMP group.

Conclusion

Based on the results above, anterior CORP and fusion is recommended for the treatment of multilevel cervical myelopathy when the involved surgical segments were <3. Given the higher rates of surgical complications and complication-related reoperation and the higher surgical trauma associated with multilevel CORP, however, it is suggested that posterior LAMP may be the preferred method of treatment for multilevel cervical myelopathy when the involved surgical segments were equal to 3 or more. In addition, taking the limitations of this study into consideration, it was still not appropriate to draw a strong conclusion claiming superiority for CORP or LAMP. A well-designed, prospective, randomized controlled trial is necessary to provide objective data on the clinical results of both procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sugrue PA, McClendon JJ, Halpin RJ, Liu JC, Koski TR, Ganju A (2011) Surgical management of cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: natural history and the role of surgical decompression and stabilization. Neurosurg Focus 30:E3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Witwer BP, Trost GR (2007) Cervical spondylosis: ventral or dorsal surgery. Neurosurgery 60:S130–S136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Saunders RL, Pikus HJ, Ball P (1998) Four-level cervical corpectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:2455–2461

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Tsuji H (1982) Laminoplasty for patients with compressive myelopathy due to so-called spinal canal stenosis in cervical and thoracic regions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 7:28–34

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hosono N, Yonenobu K, Ono K (1996) Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty. A noticeable complication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:1969–1973

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen Y, Guo Y, Lu X, Chen D, Song D, Shi J, Yuan W (2011) Surgical strategy for multilevel severe ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:24–30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:2008–2012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M (2009) 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1929–1941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Meerpohl J, Norris S, Guyatt GH (2011) GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64:401–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, Maruyama T, Wakano K (1981) Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 6:354–364

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Yonenobu K, Hosono N, Iwasaki M, Asano M, Ono K (1992) Laminoplasty versus subtotal corpectomy. A comparative study of results in multisegmental cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 17:1281–1284

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wada E, Suzuki S, Kanazawa A, Matsuoka T, Miyamoto S, Yonenobu K (2001) Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a long-term follow-up study over 10 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:1443–1448

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Edwards CN, Heller JG, Murakami H (2002) Corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched-cohort analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:1168–1175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang B, Liu H, Wang H, Zhou D (2006) Segmental instability in cervical spondylotic myelopathy with severe disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1327–1331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Masaki Y, Yamazaki M, Okawa A, Aramomi M, Hashimoto M, Koda M, Mochizuki M, Moriya H (2007) An analysis of factors causing poor surgical outcome in patients with cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: anterior decompression with spinal fusion versus laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:7–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Iwasaki M, Okuda S, Miyauchi A, Sakaura H, Mukai Y, Yonenobu K, Yoshikawa H (2007) Surgical strategy for cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: Part 2: Advantages of anterior decompression and fusion over laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:654–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee SH, Ahn Y, Lee JH (2008) Laser-assisted anterior cervical corpectomy versus posterior laminoplasty for cervical myelopathic patients with multilevel ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Photomed Laser Surg 26:119–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shibuya S, Komatsubara S, Oka S, Kanda Y, Arima N, Yamamoto T (2010) Differences between subtotal corpectomy and laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spinal Cord 48:214–220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gandhoke G, Wu JC, Rowland NC, Meyer SA, Gupta C, Mummaneni PV (2011) Anterior corpectomy versus posterior laminoplasty: is the risk of postoperative C-5 palsy different? Neurosurg Focus 31:E12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hirai T, Okawa A, Arai Y, Takahashi M, Kawabata S, Kato T, Enomoto M, Tomizawa S, Sakai K, Torigoe I, Shinomiya K (2011) Middle-term results of a prospective comparative study of anterior decompression with fusion and posterior decompression with laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:1940–1947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sakai K, Okawa A, Takahashi M, Arai Y, Kawabata S, Enomoto M, Kato T, Hirai T, Shinomiya K (2012) Five-year follow-up evaluation of surgical treatment for cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a prospective comparative study of anterior decompression and fusion with floating method versus laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:367–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, Atkins D, Kunz R, Brozek J, Montori V, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Dahm P, Meerpohl J, Vist G, Berliner E, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Murad MH, Schunemann HJ (2011) GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64:1311–1316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fraser JF, Hartl R (2007) Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a meta-analysis of fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine 6:298–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sakaura H, Hosono N, Mukai Y, Fujimori T, Iwasaki M, Yoshikawa H (2010) Preservation of muscles attached to the C2 and C7 spinous processes rather than subaxial deep extensors reduces adverse effects after cervical laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:E782–E786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang L, Song Y, Liu L, Liu H, Kong Q, Li T, Zeng J (2012) Clinical outcomes of two different types of open-door laminoplasties for cervical compressive myelopathy: a prospective study. Neurol India 60:210–216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Sudo H, Takahata M, Nagahama K, Iwata A, Minami A (2012) Impact of deep extensor muscle-preserving approach on clinical outcome of laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: comparative cohort study. Eur Spine J 21:1536–1544

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Asano S, Nohara Y, Kiya T et al (1999) Postoperative management without immobilization of the cervical spine in patients undergoing cervical laminoplasty: effects on clinical and radiological outcomes [abstract]. In: Presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cervical Spine Society, Seattle. 16 Dec 1999

  29. Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishiara H, Nobukiyo M, Seki S, Kimura T (2003) Preventive measures for axial symptoms following cervical laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:497–501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen Y, Liu X, Chen D, Wang X, Yuan W (2012) Surgical strategy for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. Orthopedics 35:e1231–e1237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 253 Gongye Road, Guangzhou, 510282, China

    Xuzhou Liu, Shaoxiong Min, Hui Zhang, Zhilai Zhou, Hehui Wang & Anmin Jin

Authors
  1. Xuzhou Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shaoxiong Min
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hui Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhilai Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hehui Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anmin Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anmin Jin.

Additional information

X. Liu and S. Min equally contributed to this work and should be considered as co-first authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liu, X., Min, S., Zhang, H. et al. Anterior corpectomy versus posterior laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 23, 362–372 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-3043-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-3043-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation