Management of Cervical Myelopathy Using Motion Sparing Techniques
Girgis Atia Aziz;
Abstract
ability of the cervical spine to function properly. The natural history would suggest a continuous decline in neurological function which can ultimately become debilitating for patients. Current treatment theory suggests that a thorough decompression of the spinal canal can aid in preventing this decline.
Laminoplasty, or decompression with retention of the posterior elements, offers a surgeon multiple advantages as a treatment option. The idea of a motion-sparing technique is the largest benefit when comparing laminoplasty to a laminectomy and posterior fusion. Laminoplasty is a viable option to consider when treating patients with CSM.
OCC can provide safe and successful removal of the spondylotic spur located anteriorly to the spinal cord. No fusion is required regardless of the number of levels. This surgical technique has shown excellent clinical outcomes with fast recovery and adequate anatomical decompression in patients with CSM and CSR. The cervical spine keeps its preoperative curvature, and mobility is preserved postoperatively close to that of a preoperative spine, reducing the risk for adjacent segment disease. Therfore this technique is an alternative to the anterior transcorporeal approach.
REFERENCES
1- Wang MC, Kreuter W, Wolfla CE, Maiman DJ, Deyo RA: Trends and variations in cervical spine surgery in the United States: Medicare beneficiaries, 1992 to 2005. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 34:955–961, 2009.
2- Ahn JS, Lee JK, Kim BK: Prognostic factors that affect the surgical outcome of the laminoplasty in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Orthop Surg.2:98–104, 2010.
3- Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, Suzuki N, Satomi K, Ishii Y: Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine, 1983; 8:693–699, 1976.
4- Della Pepa GM, Roselli R, La Rocca G, Spallone A, Barbagallo G, Visocchi M: Laminoplasty is better of laminectomy in cervical stenotic myelopathy: myth or truth? Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci.18:50–54, 2014.
5- Chibbaro S, Mirone G, Makiese O, George B: Multilevel oblique corpectomy without fusion in managing cervical myelopathy: long-term outcome and stability evaluation in 268 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 10(5):458–465, 2009.
6- Cagli S, Chamberlain RH, Sonntag VK, Crawford NR: The biomechanical effects of cervical multilevel oblique corpectomy. Spine. 29(13):1420–1427, 2004.
7- Vaccaro AR, Falatyn SP, Scuderi GJ, Eismont FJ, McGuire RA, Singh K, Garfin SR: Early failure of long segment anterior cervical plate fixation. J Spinal Disord. 11(5):410–415, 1998.
8- Cle
Laminoplasty, or decompression with retention of the posterior elements, offers a surgeon multiple advantages as a treatment option. The idea of a motion-sparing technique is the largest benefit when comparing laminoplasty to a laminectomy and posterior fusion. Laminoplasty is a viable option to consider when treating patients with CSM.
OCC can provide safe and successful removal of the spondylotic spur located anteriorly to the spinal cord. No fusion is required regardless of the number of levels. This surgical technique has shown excellent clinical outcomes with fast recovery and adequate anatomical decompression in patients with CSM and CSR. The cervical spine keeps its preoperative curvature, and mobility is preserved postoperatively close to that of a preoperative spine, reducing the risk for adjacent segment disease. Therfore this technique is an alternative to the anterior transcorporeal approach.
REFERENCES
1- Wang MC, Kreuter W, Wolfla CE, Maiman DJ, Deyo RA: Trends and variations in cervical spine surgery in the United States: Medicare beneficiaries, 1992 to 2005. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 34:955–961, 2009.
2- Ahn JS, Lee JK, Kim BK: Prognostic factors that affect the surgical outcome of the laminoplasty in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Orthop Surg.2:98–104, 2010.
3- Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, Suzuki N, Satomi K, Ishii Y: Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine, 1983; 8:693–699, 1976.
4- Della Pepa GM, Roselli R, La Rocca G, Spallone A, Barbagallo G, Visocchi M: Laminoplasty is better of laminectomy in cervical stenotic myelopathy: myth or truth? Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci.18:50–54, 2014.
5- Chibbaro S, Mirone G, Makiese O, George B: Multilevel oblique corpectomy without fusion in managing cervical myelopathy: long-term outcome and stability evaluation in 268 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 10(5):458–465, 2009.
6- Cagli S, Chamberlain RH, Sonntag VK, Crawford NR: The biomechanical effects of cervical multilevel oblique corpectomy. Spine. 29(13):1420–1427, 2004.
7- Vaccaro AR, Falatyn SP, Scuderi GJ, Eismont FJ, McGuire RA, Singh K, Garfin SR: Early failure of long segment anterior cervical plate fixation. J Spinal Disord. 11(5):410–415, 1998.
8- Cle
Other data
| Title | Management of Cervical Myelopathy Using Motion Sparing Techniques | Other Titles | مراجعه منهجيه للعلاج الجراحي لاعتلال النخاع الفقاري العنقي باستخدام التقنيات المحافظه علي الحركه | Authors | Girgis Atia Aziz | Issue Date | 2017 |
Recommend this item
Similar Items from Core Recommender Database
Items in Ain Shams Scholar are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.