Comparative Effectiveness and Functional Outcome of Open-Door versus French-Door Laminoplasty for Multilevel Cervical Myelopathy: A Meta-Analysis
Comparative Effectiveness and Functional Outcome of Open-door versus French-door Laminoplasty for Multilevel Cervical Myelopathy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.739Keywords:
Open-door laminoplasty, French-door laminoplasty, Multilevel cervical myelopathy, Meta-analysisAbstract
BACKGROUND: At present, few reports are comparing these 2 major cervical posterior laminoplasty methods with Open-door and French-door Laminoplasty in terms of neurological recovery, cervical alignment, and surgical complications. Moreover, most of the research has not been well designed.
AIM: This study aims to determine comparative effectiveness and functional outcome of open-door versus french-door laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy.
METHODS: The Meta-analysis is used in this study. The study sample is a published research articles on comparative effectiveness and functional outcome of open-door versus french-door laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy on the internet through databases on PubMed and ProQuest and published between 1997 until December 2018. Weighted mean difference and pooled weighted mean difference are calculated by using the fixed-effect model or random-effect model. Data is processed by using Review Manager 5.3 (RevMan 5.3).
RESULTS: This study reviews 58 articles. There are 6 studies conducted a systematic review and continued with Meta-analysis of relevant data. The results showed significant higher postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score in open-door laminoplasty (ODL) than French-door laminoplasty (FDL) (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35 to 1.07; p < 0.05). The outcome of procedures treatment of multilevel cervical myelopathy revealed the operative time, cervical range of motion, axial canal diameter postoperative, axial pain reduction and complications events in ODL and FDL there was no significant difference. But for a cervical lordotic angle in ODL and FDL, there was a significant difference; the ODL group were significantly lesser than the FDL group. The recovery rate in ODL and FDL, there was a significant difference; the ODL was shown to be significantly higher than FDL (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that neither cervical laminoplasty approach is superior, based on the postoperative radiological data and complication rate. But the open-door laminoplasty resulted in a higher functional outcome and recovery rate as compared to the French-door laminoplasty.
Downloads
Metrics
Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block
References
Puttlitz CM, Deviren V, Smith JA. Biomechanics of cervical laminoplasty kinetic studies comparing different surgical techniques, temporal effects and the degree of level involvement. Eur Spine J. 2004; 13:213-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0684-6 PMid:15007708 PMCid:PMC3468136
Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, et al. Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983; 8(7):693-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198310000-00003 PMid:6420895
Herkowitz H, Garfin S, Eismont F, Bell G, Balderston R. Rothman-Simeone The Spine. 6th ed. Saunders Elsevier; 2014.
Okada M, Minamide A, Endo T, Yoshida M, Kawakami M, Ando M, et al. A prospective randomized study of clinical outcomes in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy treated with open-door or French-door laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(11):1119-26. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819c3b61 PMid:19444058
Heller JG, Ralch AL, Dettori JR, Riew KD. Comparative Effectiveness of Different Types of Cervical Laminoplasty. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2013; 4(2):105-15. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1357361 PMid:24436708 PMCid:PMC3836957
Nakashima H, Kato F, Yukawa Y, Imagama S, Ito K, Machino M, et al. Comparative effectiveness of open-door laminoplasty versus French-door laminoplasty in cervical compressive myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014; 39(8):642-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000252 PMid:24503689
Kurokawa T, Tsuyama N, Tanaka H. Double door laminaplasty through longitudinal splitting of the spinous processes for cervical myelopathy. Rinsho Seikei Geka. 1984; 19:483-90.
Baek HC, Kang SH, Jeon SR, Roh SW, Rhim SC. Comparison of Early Surgical Outcome between Unilateral Open-Door Laminoplasty and Midline Splitting Laminoplasty. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2007; 41:382-6.
Park JH, Roh SW, Rhim SC, Jeon SR. Long term outcomes of 2 cervical laminoplasty methods: midline splitting versus unilateral single door. J Spin Disord Tech. 2012; 25(8):E224-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31825dda6b PMid:23160272
Wang L, Song Y, Liu L, Liu H, Kong Q, Li T, et al. Clinical outcomes of two different types of open-door laminoplasties for cervical compressive myelopathy: a prospective study. Neurol India. 2012; 60(2):210-6. https://doi.org/10.4103/0028-3886.96403 PMid:22626706
Lee DG, Lee SH, Park SJ, Kim ES, Chung SS, Lee CS, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes after cervical laminoplasty: open-door technique versus French-door technique. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013; 26(6):E198-203. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31828bb296 PMid:23511650
Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Ecless M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004; 328(7454):1490. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 PMid:15205295 PMCid:PMC428525
Naito M, Ogata K, Kurose S, Oyama M. Canal-expansive laminoplasty in 83 patients with cervical myelopathy. A comparative study of three different procedures. Int Orthop. 1994; 18(6):347-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00187078 PMid:7698864
Yue WM, Tan CT, Tan SB, Tan SK, Tay BK. Results of cervical laminoplasty and a comparison between single and double trap-door techniques. J Spinal Disord. 2000; 13(4):329-35. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002517-200008000-00010 PMid:10941893
Jiang L, Chen W, Chen Q, Xu K, Wu Q, Li F. Clinical application of a new plate fixation system in open-door laminoplasty. Orthopedics. 2012; 35(2):e225-31. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20120123-07
Wang L, Wang Y, Yu B, Li Z, Liu X. Open-door versus French-door laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical multilevel compressive myelopathy. J Clin Neurosci. 2015; 22(3):450-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2014.08.022 PMid:25523126
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 I Gusti Lanang Ngurah Agung Artha Wiguna, Rahadyan Magetsari, Zairin Noor, Suyitno Suyitno, Ricvan Dana Nindrea (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0)
