Cervical Laminoplasty

Blecher, Ronen; Yılmaz, Emre

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20847-9_7

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…And yet, this partially points to the core of the issue in resolving whether CLP or CLF is the superior technique. At present, the main limitation in literature analyses of studies comparing CLP and CLF lies within the large variations of surgical techniques that have been implemented over the years [ 35 ]. Taken together, the various subtypes of CLF and CLP, as well as the great variation in clinical presentations in patients with CMS, make it very difficult to ascertain which is the better surgical approach.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As suggested by Blecher et al [ 35 ], the range of CLF and CLP subtechniques used across studies makes it difficult to standardize outcomes for meta-analyses. According to Phan et al [ 2 ], such analyses may be limited by selection bias stemming from the inclusion of both randomized and nonrandomized observational studies as well as underlying differences in these same studies (such as presence of preoperative kyphosis and segmental stability).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Getting Down to the Bare Bones: Does laminoplasty or laminectomy With Fusion Provide Better Outcomes for Patients With Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy?

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is a degenerative disorder leading to progressive decline in spinal cord function. Cervical laminoplasty (CLP) and cervical laminectomy with fusion (CLF) are standard treatments for multilevel CSM. However, it is still unclear whether one procedure over the other provides better outcomes. Here, we performed a comprehensive review of published articles that compare the clinical outcomes and costs between CLP and CLF for CSM. Methods: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. Strict exclusion criteria were applied, and included articles were then assessed for publication year, study design, and significant differences in outcome variables. Results: From 519 studies identified with search terms, 38 studies were included for the qualitative analysis. Statistically significant differences in the clinical outcomes and costs were found in 18 studies. Eleven studies were prospective or retrospective, and 8 studies were meta-analyses. For the outcome variables of interest, results were reported by classifying into prospective studies, retrospective studies, and meta-analyses. Conclusion: CLP and CLF are 2 of the most commonly performed surgical procedures for the treatment of CSM. Although CLP and CLF each provide satisfactory clinical outcomes for patients with CMS, CLP may result in better cervical range of motion and less cost, length of stay, operation time, blood loss, paraspinal muscular atrophy, and rate of nerve palsies as compared to CLF. The major limitation of CLP versus CLF comparison studies includes the heterogeneity in techniques and preoperative criteria. Thus, further validation and investigations in larger cohorts will be required.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%