Cervical laminoplasty versus laminectomy and posterior cervical fusion for cervical myelopathy: propensity-matched analysis of 24-month outcomes from the Quality Outcomes Database.



Compared with laminectomy with posterior cervical fusion (PCF), cervical laminoplasty (CL) may result in different outcomes for those operated on for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). The aim of this study was to compare 24-month patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for laminoplasty versus PCF by using the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) CSM data set.


This was a retrospective study using an augmented data set from the prospectively collected QOD Registry Cervical Module. Patients undergoing laminoplasty or PCF for CSM were included. Using the nearest-neighbor method, the authors performed 1:1 propensity matching based on age, operated levels, and baseline modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) and visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain scores. The 24-month PROs, i.e., mJOA, Neck Disability Index (NDI), VAS neck pain, VAS arm pain, EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, and North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction scores, were compared. Only cases in the subaxial cervical region were included; those that crossed the cervicothoracic junction were excluded.


From the 1141 patients included in the QOD CSM data set who underwent anterior or posterior surgery for cervical myelopathy, 946 (82.9%) had 24 months of follow-up. Of these, 43 patients who underwent laminoplasty and 191 who underwent PCF met the inclusion criteria. After matching, the groups were similar for baseline characteristics, including operative levels (CL group: 4.0 ± 0.9 vs PCF group: 4.2 ± 1.1, p = 0.337) and baseline PROs (p > 0.05), except for a higher percentage involved in activities outside the home in the CL group (95.3% vs 81.4%, p = 0.044). The 24-month follow-up for the matched cohorts was similar (CL group: 88.4% vs PCF group: 83.7%, p = 0.534). Patients undergoing laminoplasty had significantly lower estimated blood loss (99.3 ± 91.7 mL vs 186.7 ± 142.7 mL, p = 0.003), decreased length of stay (3.0 ± 1.6 days vs 4.5 ± 3.3 days, p = 0.012), and a higher rate of routine discharge (88.4% vs 62.8%, p = 0.006). The CL cohort also demonstrated a higher rate of return to activities (47.2% vs 21.2%, p = 0.023) after 3 months. Laminoplasty was associated with a larger improvement in 24-month NDI score (-19.6 ± 18.9 vs -9.1 ± 21.9, p = 0.031). Otherwise, there were no 3- or 24-month differences in mJOA, mean NDI, VAS neck pain, VAS arm pain, EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, and distribution of NASS satisfaction scores (p > 0.05) between the cohorts.


Compared with PCF, laminoplasty was associated with decreased blood loss, decreased length of hospitalization, and higher rates of home discharge. At 3 months, laminoplasty was associated with a higher rate of return to baseline activities. At 24 months, laminoplasty was associated with greater improvements in neck disability. Otherwise, laminoplasty and PCF shared similar outcomes for functional status, pain, quality of life, and satisfaction. Laminoplasty and PCF achieved similar neck pain scores, suggesting that moderate preoperative neck pain may not necessarily be a contraindication for laminoplasty.





Published Version (Please cite this version)


Publication Info

Yang, Eunice, Praveen V Mummaneni, Dean Chou, Mohamad Bydon, Erica F Bisson, Christopher I Shaffrey, Oren N Gottfried, Anthony L Asher, et al. (2023). Cervical laminoplasty versus laminectomy and posterior cervical fusion for cervical myelopathy: propensity-matched analysis of 24-month outcomes from the Quality Outcomes Database. Journal of neurosurgery. Spine. pp. 1–11. 10.3171/2023.6.spine23345 Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/29228.

This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.

Unless otherwise indicated, scholarly articles published by Duke faculty members are made available here with a CC-BY-NC (Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial) license, as enabled by the Duke Open Access Policy. If you wish to use the materials in ways not already permitted under CC-BY-NC, please consult the copyright owner. Other materials are made available here through the author’s grant of a non-exclusive license to make their work openly accessible.