4.1 Article

Expansion Open-door Laminoplasty With Foraminotomy Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Coexisting Multilevel Cervical Myelopathy and Unilateral Radiculopathy

期刊

CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY
卷 29, 期 1, 页码 E21-E27

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000074

关键词

cervical radiculomyelopathy; foraminotomy; laminoplasty; anterior decompression; prospective comparative study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Design: This was a clinical prospective study. Objective: To assess whether clinical and radiologic outcomes differ between expansion open-door laminoplasty with foraminotomy (EOLF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of coexisting multilevel cervical myelopathy and unilateral radiculopathy (CMUR). Summary of Background Data: No reports to date have compared clinical outcomes between anterior and posterior decompression for CMUR. Materials and Methods: We prospectively performed ACDF (n = 59) in 2004, 2006, and 2008 and EOLF (n = 62) in 2005, 2007, and 2009. The Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and recovery rate were evaluated. For radiographic evaluation, the lordotic angle and range of motion at C2 C7 were investigated. Results: Only 110 patients could be followed for > 3 years (EOLF/ACDF: 56/54; follow-up rate, 90.9%). Demographics were similar between the 2 groups. Compared with ACDF, in EOLF group there were shorter operating time (144 vs. 178 min), less bleeding (175 vs. 192 mL), and fewer complications (P < 0.05). Results of JOA score and recovery rate, at 3-year postoperative follow-up, showed no statistical difference for the 2 groups. Cervical lordosis of ACDF increased from 13.7 to 16.2 degrees, whereas that of EOLF group decreased from 14.6 to 13.3 degrees (P < 0.05). The percentage of range of motion declined in the 2 groups (ACDF/EOLF), 57.4% versus 74.7% (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The 2 surgical procedures have similar clinical effects in treating multisegmental CMUR. However, the EOLF group demonstrated shorter operative time, less blood loss, and fewer complications; therefore, it proved to be a more effective and safer method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据