View/Download PDF
Letter to the Editor
2020
:11;
126
doi:
10.25259/SNI_208_2020
CROSSMARK LOGO Buy Reprints
PDF

Letter to the editor: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated with laminectomy versus open-door laminoplasty

Department of Neurosurgery, Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Sciences, Saifai, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Corresponding author: Ahmed Ansari, Department of Neurosurgery, Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Sciences, Saifai, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh, India. ahmed.ansari2@gmail.com
Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
How to cite this article: Ansari A. Letter to the editor: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated with laminectomy versus open-door laminoplasty. Surg Neurol Int 2020;11:126.

We read with great interest the article by Dobran et al.[1] comparing outcomes for cervical spondylotic myelopathy utilizing laminectomy versus open-door laminoplasty. We would like to highlight two important points, which the authors have not discussed in their study.

The authors entirely ignored facet distraction arthrodesis as a treatment for single- or multiple- level CSM, written by Goel, Goel, and Shah.[2-4] Their alternative hypothesis was that it was not disc space reduction that contributed to CSM. Rather, the pathogenesis of CSM deterioration was attributed to telescoping of spinal segments and listhesis of the inferior facet of a cranial vertebra over the superior facet of caudal vertebrae, leading to vertical spinal instability. Further, buckling of the intervertebral ligaments, osteophyte formation, and the reduction of neural canal dimensions secondarily reduced the vertical height of multiple spinal segments. Hence, they promoted facetal distraction without decompression to reverse the pathological findings of CSM, providing immediate postoperative symptomatic relief.

Notably, opponents of this theory state that “fixation only” does not immediately reverse neural canal compromise attributed to stenosis with ligamentous hypertrophy.

We have documented that plain open-door laminoplasty without any implant fixation adequately “keeps the door open” without necessitating expensive spinal implants. Once the lamina is open from one side, broken from the other side with the contralateral side sutured in place (i.e., simple silk sutures), the door typically does not go on to fully close.

CONCLUSION

More multicentric trials are needed to compare the efficacy with CSM of performing “fixation only” versus “fixation with decompression,” utilizing open-door laminoplasty technique with/ without implants.

Declaration of patient consent

Patient’s consent not required as there are no patients in this study.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

  1. , , , , , , . Laminectomy versus open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: A clinical outcome analysis. Surg Neurol Int. 2020;11:1-4
    [Google Scholar]
  2. . Only fixation as rationale treatment for spinal canal stenosis. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2011;2:55-6
    [Google Scholar]
  3. . A review of a new clinical entity of central atlantoaxial instability: Expanding horizons of craniovertebral junction surgery. Neurospine. 2019;16:186-94
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , . Facetal distraction as treatment for single-and multilevel cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and myelopathy: A preliminary report. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14:689-96
    [Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
57

PDF downloads
1
View/Download PDF
Download Citations
BibTeX
RIS
Show Sections