Operative Techniques in Orthopaedics
Volume 17, Issue 3 , Pages 169-173 , July 2007

Laminoplasty

  • Adam Shimer, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedics, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
    • ,
  • Joon Y. Lee, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedics, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress reprint requests to: Joon Y. Lee, MD, Department of Orthopaedics, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Division of Spine Surgery, 3471 5th Avenue, 1010 Kaufmann Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.
    • ,
  • Chadi Tannoury, MD

      Affiliations

    • The Rothman Institute and Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, PA.

References 

  1. Ratliff JK, Cooper PR: Cervical laminoplasty: A critical review. 30th Cervical Spine Reseach Society Meeting; 2002 Dec 5-7; Miami, FL
  2. Suda K, Abumi K, Ito M, et al. Local kyphosis reduces surgical outcomes of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2003;28:1258–1262
  3. Mizuno J, Nakagawa H. Ossified posterior longitudinal ligament: Management strategies and outcomes. Spine J. 2006;6(6 suppl):S282–S288
  4. Fan D, Schwartz DM, Vaccaro AR, et al. Intraoperative neurophysiologic detection of iatrogenic C5 nerve root injury during laminectomy for cervical compression myelopathy. Spine. 2002;27:2499–24502
  5. Wang XY, Dai LY, Xu HZ, et al. Prediction of spinal canal expansion following cervical laminoplasty: A computer-simulated comparison between single and double-door techniques. Spine. 2006;31:2863–2870
  6. Hirabayashi K, Satomi K. Operative procedure and results of expansive open-door laminoplasty. Spine. 1988;13:870–876
  7. Lee JY, Hanks SE, Oxner W, et al. Use of small suture anchors in cervical laminoplasty to maintain canal expansion: A technical note. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007;20:33–35
  8. O’Brien MF, Peterson D, Casey AT, Crockard HA. A novel technique for laminoplasty augmentation of spinal canal area using titanium miniplate stabilization (A computerized morphometric analysis). Spine. 1996;21:474–483
  9. Heller JG, Qureshi AA: Biomechanical Comparison of Current Fixation Methods to a Novel Laminoplasty Plate. Paper #12, 30th Cervical Spine Reseach Society Meeting; 2002 Dec 5-7; Miami, FL
  10. Tomita K, Kawahara N, Toribatake Y, et al. Expansive midline T-saw laminoplasty (modified spinous process-splitting) for the management of cervical myelopathy. Spine. 1998;23:32–37
  11. Seichi A, Takeshita K, Ohishi I, et al. Long-term results of double-door laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine. 2001;26:479–487
  12. Goto T, Ohata K, Takami T, et al. Hydroxyapatite laminar spacers and titanium miniplates in cervical laminoplasty. J Neurosurg. 2002;97:323–329
  13. Shiraishi T. Skip laminectomy—a new treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy, preserving bilateral muscular attachments to the spinous processes: A preliminary report. Spine J. 2002;2:108–115
  14. Shiraishi T, Fukuda K, Yato Y, et al. Results of skip laminectomy-minimum 2-year follow-up study compared with open-door laminoplasty. Spine. 2003;28:2667–2672
  15. Wada E, Suzuki S, Kanazawa A, et al. Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: A long-term follow-up study over 10 years. Spine. 2001;26:1443–1447
  16. Sakaura H, Hosono N, Mukai Y, et al. C5 palsy after decompression surgery for cervical myelopathy: Review of the literature. Spine. 2003;28:2447–2451
  17. Takeuchi K, Yokoyama T, Aburakawa S, et al. Postoperative changes at the lower end of cervical laminoplasty: For preservation of the C7 spinous process in laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006;19:402–406

PII: S1048-6666(07)00047-X

doi: 10.1053/j.oto.2007.04.003

Operative Techniques in Orthopaedics
Volume 17, Issue 3 , Pages 169-173 , July 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution