Comparison of Outcomes of Laminoplasty and Laminectomy with Fusion and Internal Fixation in Patients with Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy (CSM)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v6i6.1897Keywords:
Cervical Vertebrae, Decompression, Surgical, Laminoplasty, Laminectomy, SpondylosisAbstract
Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) are major causes of progressive spinal cord compression in adults. Surgical decompression is the standard treatment, with laminoplasty and laminectomy with fusion being two widely employed techniques. However, comparative evidence regarding functional outcomes and recovery patterns in these procedures remains limited, particularly in South Asian populations. Objective: To evaluate variations in patient outcomes and recovery between the two surgical techniques; to compare the efficacy of laminoplasty and laminectomy with fusion and internal fixation in the management of CSM and Cervical OPLL. Methods: The study was designed as a prospective, randomized controlled trial conducted in the Department of Neurosurgery at Civil Hospital Karachi over three months, from August 2024 to January 2025, following ethics approval of the study protocol. Adult patients aged 40 years or older presenting with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (including OPLL) who had failed conservative therapy and demonstrated two or more levels of spinal cord compression were screened for eligibility. Results: Peri- and postoperative pain, assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (Table 2), improved in both cohorts, although no statistical significance was observed between them at any time point. Preoperatively, Group A reported a mean VAS of 7.13 ± 1.09 versus 6.80 ± 0.90 in Group B (p = 0.144). At one-month post-op, scores fell to 5.20 ± 1.23 and 4.84 ± 1.15 (p = 0.059); at three months, to 4.24 ± 1.32 and 3.86 ± 1.31 (p = 0.139); and by six months, to 3.78 ± 1.40 and 3.33 ± 1.31 (p = 0.096). Functional status measured by the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score is detailed in Table 3. Baseline mJOA scores were 10.3 ± 1.88 in Group A and 10.6 ± 1.67 in Group B (p = 0.396). Both groups showed progressive neurological recovery: at one month, means rose to 12.3 ± 2.13 versus 12.8 ± 1.87 (p = 0.215); at three months, to 13.3 ± 2.10 versus 13.9 ± 1.90 (p = 0.137); and at six months, to 13.8 ± 2.06 versus 14.4 ± 2.00 (p = 0.119), again with no significant intergroup differences. Conclusion: Open-door laminoplasty and laminectomy with fusion provide equivalent midterm improvements in multilevel CSM, with laminoplasty offering shorter operative time.
Downloads
References
Barry S, Fehlings MG. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. In: Steinmetz MP, Wang JC, editors. AO Spine Textbook: Comprehensive Overview on Surgical Management of the Spine. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers; 2020. p. 389–401. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp/books/18416
Saunders LM, Sandhu HS, McBride L, Maniarasu VS, Taylor S, Dhokia R. Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: An Overview. Cureus. 2023;15(12):e50387. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.50387
Wu JC, Ko CC, Yen YS, Huang WC, Chen YC, Liu L, et al. Epidemiology of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and its risk of causing spinal cord injury: a national cohort study. Neurosurg Focus. 2013;35(1):E10. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.4.FOCUS13122
Chang C-J, Liu Y-F, Hsiao Y-M, Chang W-L, Hsu C-C, Liu K-C, et al. Full Endoscopic Spine Surgery for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Systematic Review. World Neurosurg. 2023;175:142–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2023.05.028
Weinberg DS, Rhee JM. Cervical laminoplasty: indication, technique, complications. J Spine Surg. 2020;6:290–301. https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2019.11.20
Lopez W, Goh B, Upadhyaya S, Ziino C, Georgakas P, Gupta A, et al. Laminoplasty—an underutilized procedure for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J. 2021;21(4):571–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2020.10.021
Zuo KK, Qin W, Miao Y, Zhu L. Analysis of risk factors of axial neck pain in posterior cervical single-door laminoplasty from the perspective of cervical sagittal plane. Front Surg. 2022;9:973924. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.973924
Lau D, Winkler EA, Than KD, Chou D, Mummaneni PV. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with posterior spinal fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: influence of cervical alignment on outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27(5):508–517. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.4.SPINE16831
Fehlings MG, Santaguida C, Tetreault L, Arnold P, Barbagallo G, Defino H, et al. Laminectomy and fusion versus laminoplasty for the treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy: results from the AOSpine North America and International prospective multicenter studies. Spine J. 2017;17(1):102–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.08.019
Zhao H, Ren R, Ma W, Xu S, Peng L, Zhong Z, et al. Comparison of Laminoplasty vs. Laminectomy for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Surg. 2021;8:790593. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.790593
Goh BC, Striano BM, Lopez WY, Upadhyaya S, Ziino C, Georgakas PJ, et al. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a cost analysis. Spine J. 2020;20(11):1770–1775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2020.07.012
Dai L, Du K, Guo P, Gong H, Wang W, Hou X, et al. Comparison of Laminectomy with Fusion and Laminoplasty Treating Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Single-Center Retrospective Study. World Neurosurg. 2024;186:e487–e494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2024.03.163
Singhatanadgige W, Limthongkul W, Valone F 3rd, Yingsakmongkol W, Riew KD. Outcomes following Laminoplasty or Laminectomy and Fusion in Patients with Myelopathy Caused by Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament: A Systematic Review. Global Spine J. 2016;6(7):702–709. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1578805
Yuan X, Wei C, Xu W, Gan X, Cao S, Luo J. Comparison of laminectomy and fusion vs laminoplasty in the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(13):e14971. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000014971
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Kinza Fatima, Muhammad Faiq Ali, . Zulqarnain, Shuja Shaukat, Farhad Ali, Irfan Ali Shah

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.