Comparison of laminoplasty and posterior fusion surgery for cervical ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament.

Publisher: Nature Publishing Group Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101563288 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2045-2322 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 20452322 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Sci Rep Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: London : Nature Publishing Group, copyright 2011-

Cervical Vertebrae/*surgery ; Laminoplasty/*methods ; Ossification of Posterior Longitudinal Ligament/*surgery ; Spinal Cord Diseases/*surgery ; Spinal Fusion/*methods; Aged ; Cervical Vertebrae/physiopathology ; Disease Progression ; Female ; Humans ; Japan ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Ossification of Posterior Longitudinal Ligament/diagnostic imaging ; Ossification of Posterior Longitudinal Ligament/physiopathology ; Prospective Studies ; Range of Motion, Articular ; Time Factors ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed ; Treatment Outcome

This prospective multicenter study, established by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and involving 27 institutions, aimed to compare postoperative outcomes between laminoplasty (LM) and posterior fusion (PF) for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), in order to address the controversy surrounding the role of instrumented fusion in cases of posterior surgical decompression for OPLL. 478 patients were considered for participation in the study; from among them, 189 (137 and 52 patients with LM and PF, respectively) were included and evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, the JOA Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ), and radiographical measurements. Basic demographic and radiographical data were reviewed, and the propensity to choose a surgical procedure was calculated. Preoperatively, there were no significant differences among the participants in terms of patient backgrounds, radiographical measurements (K-line or cervical alignment on X-ray, OPLL occupation ratio on computed tomography, increased signal intensity change on magnetic resonance imaging), or clinical status (JOA score and JOACMEQ) after adjustments. The overall risk of perioperative complications was found to be lower with LM (odds ratio [OR] 0.40, p = 0.006), and the rate of C5 palsy occurrence was significantly lower with LM (OR 0.11, p = 0.0002) than with PF. The range of motion (20.91° ± 1.05° and 9.38° ± 1.24°, p < 0.0001) in patients who had PF was significantly smaller than in those who had LM. However, multivariable logistic regression analysis showed no significant difference among the participants in JOA score, JOA recovery rate, or JOACMEQ improvement at two years. In contrast, OPLL progression was greater in the LM group than in the PF group (OR 2.73, p = 0.0002). Both LM and PF for cervical myelopathy due to OPLL had resulted in comparable postoperative outcomes at 2 years after surgery.
(© 2022. The Author(s).)

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Dec 15;31(26):2998-3005. (PMID: 17172996)
Acta Pathol Jpn. 1980 Mar;30(2):255-73. (PMID: 6770578)
J Neurosurg Spine. 2015 Jul;23(1):24-34. (PMID: 25909270)
J Neurosurg Spine. 2012 Aug;17(2):103-10. (PMID: 22632173)
Global Spine J. 2019 May;9(3):315-320. (PMID: 31192100)
J Neurosurg Spine. 2005 Jul;3(1):17-23. (PMID: 16122017)
J Spinal Disord. 1999 Jun;12(3):271-3. (PMID: 10382784)
J Neurosurg Spine. 2005 Sep;3(3):198-204. (PMID: 16235702)
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Jan 1;39(1):58-67. (PMID: 24108293)
J Clin Neurosci. 2018 Dec;58:7-12. (PMID: 30279123)
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1981 Jul-Aug;6(4):354-64. (PMID: 6792717)
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Jun 15;40(12):E675-93. (PMID: 25839387)
J Neurosurg Spine. 2012 Mar;16(3):238-47. (PMID: 22176430)
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Jun;(411):129-39. (PMID: 12782868)
J Neurosurg Spine. 2021 Apr 30;:1-10. (PMID: 33930862)
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021 Dec 1;46(23):E1238-E1245. (PMID: 33958538)
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Mar;98(13):e14971. (PMID: 30921202)
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Feb 1;45(3):E170-E178. (PMID: 31415461)
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Mar 15;32(6):647-53. (PMID: 17413469)
Spine J. 2017 Jan;17(1):102-108. (PMID: 27597512)
Global Spine J. 2019 Dec;9(8):866-873. (PMID: 31819853)
Eur Spine J. 2011 Jun;20(6):890-8. (PMID: 20936306)
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Apr 15;39(8):642-7. (PMID: 24503689)
HSS J. 2020 Jul;16(2):188-194. (PMID: 32508546)
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019 Apr 15;44(8):E456-E464. (PMID: 30260831)
Global Spine J. 2017 Sep;7(3 Suppl):53S-69S. (PMID: 29164033)
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Apr 20;37(9):748-54. (PMID: 21912316)
J Orthop Sci. 2008 Jan;13(1):25-31. (PMID: 18274852)
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Mar 2;98(5):370-8. (PMID: 26935459)
Spine J. 2016 Feb;16(2):219-25. (PMID: 26523967)
J Neurosurg. 2002 Mar;96(2 Suppl):180-9. (PMID: 12450281)
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Jul;97(29):e11542. (PMID: 30024545)
JBJS Rev. 2017 Feb 28;5(2):. (PMID: 28248739)
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 Mar 15;42(6):407-410. (PMID: 27398886)
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Jul 15;38(16):E992-7. (PMID: 23609205)
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Sep 15;37(20):E1243-50. (PMID: 22739671)
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008 Jun;21(4):267-72. (PMID: 18525487)
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Dec 15;33(26):E990-3. (PMID: 19092610)
Spine J. 2011 Nov;11(11):1049-57. (PMID: 22015235)
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Aug 1;45(15):E909-E916. (PMID: 32675602)

No. 040 Japanese Health Labour Sciences Research Grant

Investigator: H Nakashima; S Imagama; T Yoshii; S Egawa; K Sakai; K Kusano; Y Nakagawa; T Hirai; K Wada; K Katsumi; K Fujii; A Kimura; T Furuya; T Kanchiku; Y Nagamoto; Y Oshima; N Nagoshi; K Ando; M Takahata; K Mori; H Nakajima; K Murata; S Matsunaga; T Kaito; K Yamada; S Kobayashi; S Kato; T Ohba; S Inamia; S Fujibayashi; H Katoh; H Kanno; M Koda; Y Kawaguchi; K Takeshita; M Matsumoto; M Yamazaki; A Okawa

Date Created: 20220115 Date Completed: 20220228 Latest Revision: 20220228

20250114

PMC8760337

10.1038/s41598-021-04727-1

35031694