Objective To investigate the effects of 20° sharp rongeur or high-speed-micro- drill on the open angle to make hinges in cervical posterior open-door expansive laminoplasty. Methods Patients who received cervical posterior open-door expansive laminoplasty were collected in our hospital and were followed up prospectively. They were divided into 2 following groups according to the instrument of making hinges, which are a 20°sharp rongeur group and a high speed micro-drill group. Cervical vertebra computed tomography (CT) was performed before operation and within 1 week after operation in all patients. The angles between the lamina and the coronal vertebral body on the CT cross-section were measured before and after surgery. Then these data were statistically analyzed. Results 40 patients were collected in and were followed up, including 23 cases in the rongeur group and 17 cases in the drill group. In the rongeur group, the mean angle between the open segment lamina and the coronal plane before operation was (37.58±4.09)°, while the angle in the drill group was (36.19±3.92)°, which showed no statistical difference between them (P=0.286). And the open angle of the rongeur group after operation was (62.27±3.99)°, while (67.17±3.48)° in drill group, which were significantly different (P<0.001). In addition, there were statistical difference in the lamina expansion angle, preoperative and postoperative open angle ratio, and expansion rate of open angle between these two groups (P<0.01). Conclusions Using 20° sharp rongeur to make hinges can control the open angle more precisely and closer to the ideal open angle than using high speed micro-drill.
Key words
Cervical vertebra expansive laminoplasty; Open angle /
Sharp rongeur; High- speed-micro-drill
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] Oyama M, Hattori S, Moriwaki N. A new method of cervical laminectomy[M]. 1973.792-794.
[2] Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, et al. Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976),1981,6(4):354~364. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-198107000-00005.
[3] Kurokawa T, Tsuyama N, Tanaka H. Enlargement of the spinal canal by the sagittal splitting of spinous processes[J]. Bessatsu Seikeigeka,1982, 2:234-240.
[4] Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, et al. Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976),1983,8(7):693-699. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-198310000-00003.
[5] Maezumi H. Cervical radiculopathy after the posterior decompression of the cervical cord[J]. Ital J Orthop Traumatol,1989, 20(8):324-328.
[6] Imagama S, Matsuyama Y, Yukawa Y, et al. C5 palsy after cervical laminoplasty: a multicentre study[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2010, 92(3):393-400. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B3.22786.
[7] Tsuzuki N, Zhogshi L, Abe R, et al. Paralysis of the arm after posterior decompression of the cervical spinal cord. I. Anatomical investigation of the mechanism of paralysis[J]. Eur Spine J,1993,2(4):191-196. DOI: 10.1007/BF00299446.
[8] Hatta Y, Shiraishi T, Hase H, et al. Is posterior spinal cord shifting by extensive posterior decompression clinically significant for multisegmental cervical spondylotic myelopathy?[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2005, 30(21):2414-2419. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs. 0000184751. 80857.3e.
[9] Tsuzuki N, Abe R, Saiki K, et al. Extradural tethering effect as one mechanism of radiculopathy complicating posterior decompression of the cervical spinal cord[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976),1996,21(2):203-211. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199601150-00008.
[10]Dai L, Ni B, Yuan W, et al. Radiculopathy after laminectomy for cervical compression myelopathy[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1998,80(5):846~849. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.80B5.8580.
[11]Uematsu Y, Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H. Radiculopathy after laminoplasty of the cervical spine[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976),1998,23(19):2057-2062. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199810010-00004.
[12]J W, T S, X H. Impact of different laminae open angles on axial symptoms after expansive open-door laminoplasty[J]. Medicine, 2018. DOI: 10.1097/MD.000000000001182.
[13] 李方栩. 不同角度颈椎单开门椎管扩大成形术的临床效果对比[D]. 大连医科大学, 2014.
[14] 孙天威，张杭，卢守亮，等. 颈椎单开门椎管扩大成形术椎板开门角度对脊髓型颈椎病疗效的影响[J]. 中国脊柱脊髓杂志, 2012, 22(1):8-13.
[15] Tsuji T, Matsumoto M, Nakamura M, et al. Factors associated with postoperative C5 palsy after expansive open-door laminoplasty: retrospective cohort study using multivariable analysis[J]. Eur Spine J,2017, 26(9):2410-2416. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-017-5223-3.
[16] Wang X Y, Dai L Y, Xu H Z, et al. Prediction of spinal canal expansion following cervical laminoplasty: a computer-simulated comparison between single and double-door techniques[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2006, 31(24):2863-2870. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000245851.55012.f1.
PDF(2395 KB)
