• Spine · May 2009

    Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study

    A prospective randomized study of clinical outcomes in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy treated with open-door or French-door laminoplasty.

    • Motohiro Okada, Akihito Minamide, Toru Endo, Munehito Yoshida, Mamoru Kawakami, Muneharu Ando, Hiroshi Hashizume, Yukihiro Nakagawa, and Kazuhiro Maio.
    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan. motohiro2doctor@yahoo.co.jp
    • Spine. 2009 May 15;34(11):1119-26.

    Study DesignA prospective randomized clinical study.ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of open-door and French-door laminoplasties.Summary Of Background DataExpansive laminoplasty for cervical compressive myelopathy is well established and a variety of modifications procedures have been developed. The procedures are mainly classified into open-door and French-door. It has never been prospectively investigated as to which surgical procedure, open-door or French-door laminoplasty, results in a more favorable outcome.MethodsAfter informed consent was obtained from 40 patients, they were randomized into 2 surgical groups A and B. Patients in group A had open-door laminoplasty, and patients in group B underwent French-door laminoplasty with reattachment of the spinous process and extensor musculatures. The following criteria were evaluated: operation time, blood loss, perioperative complications, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, recovery rates, axial pain, and short-form 36 (SF-36). For radiographic evaluation, cervical lordosis was reviewed as lordotic angles, which were measured at C2-C7.ResultsAlthough the operation time was significantly less in group A as compared with group B, the mean blood loss in group A was significantly more than group B. Perioperative complications occurred more frequently in group A than in group B. Although there were no significant differences in postoperative JOA scores and recovery rates between the 2 groups, axial pain was significantly decreased in group B at final follow-up. The scores of every subscale of the SF-36 were higher in group B than group A.ConclusionPerioperative complications occurred more frequently in open-door laminoplasty than in French-door laminoplasty. JOA scores and recovery rates suggested that both open-door and French-door laminoplasties could be similarly effective in decompressing the spinal cord. Axial pain was improved in French-door laminoplasty but became worse in open-door laminoplasty. SF-36 suggested that French-door laminoplasty could be more beneficial than open-door laminoplasty for patients with cervical compressive myelopathy.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…