Study Design: Retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database years 2010 to 2015.
Objective: Investigate which short-term outcomes differ for cervical laminoplasty and laminectomy and fusion surgeries.
Summary Of Background Data: Conflicting reports exist in spine literature regarding short-term outcomes following cervical laminoplasty and posterior laminectomy and fusion. The objective of this study was to compare the 30-day outcomes for these two treatment groups for multilevel cervical pathology.
Methods: Patients who underwent cervical laminoplasty or posterior laminectomy and fusion were identified in National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) based on Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code: laminoplasty 63,050 and 63,051, posterior cervical laminectomy 63,015 and 63,045, and instrumentation 22,842. Propensity-adjusted multivariate regressions assessed differences in postoperative length of stay, adverse events, discharge disposition, and readmission.
Results: Three thousand seven hundred ninety-six patients were included: 2397 (63%) underwent cervical laminectomy and fusion and 1399 (37%) underwent cervical laminoplasty. Both groups were similar in age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologist Classification (ASA), Charleston Comorbidity Index (CCI), and had similar rates of malnutrition, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and history for steroid use. Age more than 70 and age less than 50 were not associated with one treatment group over the other (P > 0.05). Compared with laminoplasty patients, laminectomy and fusion patients had increased lengths of stay (LOS) (4.5 vs. 3.7 d, P < 0.01) and increased rates of adverse events (41.7% vs. 35.9%, P < 0.01), discharge to rehab (16.4% vs. 8.6%, P < 0.01), and skilled nursing facilities (12.2% vs. 9.7%, P = 0.02), and readmission (6.2% vs. 4.5%, P = 0.05). Both groups experienced similar rates of death, pulmonary embolus, deep vein thrombosis, deep and superficial surgical site infection, and reoperation (P > 0.05 for all).
Conclusion: Posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion patients were found to have increased LOS, readmissions, and complications despite having similar pre-op demographics and comorbidities. Patients and surgeons should consider these risks when considering surgical treatment for cervical pathology.
Level Of Evidence: 3.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003057 | DOI Listing |
Asian Spine J
January 2025
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Selecting the optimal surgical treatment for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy significantly affects symptom improvement, postoperative prognosis, and quality of life. Proper patient selection and precise surgical execution are crucial for achieving successful outcomes, considering the favorable natural course of cervical radiculopathy. Several factors must be considered, including the number of affected segments, spinal alignment, kyphosis degree, stiffness, and surgeon expertise, when determining the surgical approach for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFN Am Spine Soc J
March 2025
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Background: Laminectomy and fusion (LF) and laminoplasty (LP) are common treatments for cervical spondylotic myelopathy and myeloradiculopathy. While both procedures show similar clinical improvement, LF requires bony fusion while LP offers motion preservation. Cervical sagittal alignment and horizontal gaze maintenance are key outcome measures, but their comparative effects between LF and LP remain unclear.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Bone Joint Surg Am
January 2025
Department of Orthopedics, Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.
Background: In the setting of cervical open-door laminoplasty, the question of whether or not every opened laminar level should be instrumented has not been sufficiently investigated. We postulated that the surgical outcomes of open-door laminoplasty with instrumentation of every second opened level (skip-fixation) might not be inferior to those of laminoplasty with instrumentation of every opened level (all-fixation). The purpose of the present study was to test the noninferiority of laminoplasty with skip-fixation in improving myelopathy at 2 years postoperatively compared with all-fixation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFGlobal Spine J
January 2025
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.
Objective: To (1) determine whether preoperative neck pain improves after laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy and identify factors that could predict improvements in neck pain.
Methods: A total of 88 patients with preoperative neck pain visual analogue scale (VAS) of ≥4, who underwent laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy, and were followed-up for >2 years were retrospectively reviewed.
Clin Spine Surg
November 2024
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Study Design: Retrospective database study.
Objective: To leverage a commercial insurance claims database to explore trends in laminoplasty utilization and reimbursement in the United States. Secondarily, volume estimates were compared with data from the industry and from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS).
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!