Commentary on article: Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: A meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes by Chang-Hyun Lee et al.

BACKGROUND

This is a commentary on the article laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion (LF) for multilevel cervical myelopathy: A meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes by Chang-Hyun Lee et al. Here, the authors utilized seven studies to compare the efficacy of cervical expansive laminoplasty (EL) versus laminectomy and fusion (LF) to address three or more level multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Both procedures led to similar degrees of neurological recovery and short-term loss of lordosis, but found that LF led to more favorable long-term results.

METHODS

For patients with three or more level CSM, laminectomy followed by an instrumented fusion (LF) has major advantages; open bilateral decompression of the nerve roots, while minimizing the risk of inadvertent injury to the cord, and the fusion's maintenance of lordosis.

RESULTS

Some would argue that inadvertent cord/root injury is greater utilizing any of the EL techniques; e.g., unilateral, bilateral, or spinous process splitting techniques. In short, why risk cord/root injury by manipulating the compressive posterior/posterolateral elements, which are already threatening neural function.

CONCLUSION

Although the results of EL versus LF appeared comparable in the short-term in these seven articles, LF resulted in better long-term outcomes. Some would also argue that LF, utilizing an open approach offers safer bilateral neural exposure and decompression.