OBJECT: Cervical @entity602 due to @entity4720 or @entity3057 is often treated with laminoplasty or cervical laminectomy (with fusion). The goal of this study was to compare outcomes, radiographic results, complications, and implant costs associated with these 2 treatments. METHODS: The authors analyzed the records of 56 @entity1 (age range 42   81 years) who were surgically treated for cervical @entity850 . Of this group, 30 underwent laminoplasty and 26 underwent laminectomy with fusion. @entity1 who had cervical @entity1513 or spondylolisthesis were excluded. An average of 4 levels were instrumented in the laminoplasty group and 5 levels in the fusion group (p < 0.01). Forty-two percent of the fusions crossed the cervicothoracic junction, but no laminoplasty instrumentation crossed the cervicothoracic junction, and it only reached C-7 in one-third of the cases. Preoperative and postoperative Nurick grades and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scores were obtained. Outcomes were also assessed with @entity4048 visual analog scale (VAS) scores and the Odom outcome criteria. Postoperative length of stay, complications, and implant costs were calculated. RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up, average @entity1 age, and length of hospital stay were similar for both groups. The mean Nurick scores were also similar in the 2 groups and improved an average of 1.4 points in both (p < 0.01 for preoperative-postoperative comparison in each group). The mean mJOA scores improved 2.7 points in laminoplasty @entity1 and 2.8 points in fusion @entity1 (p < 0.01 for each group). The mean VAS scores for @entity4048 did not change significantly in the laminoplasty cohort (3.2    2.8 [SD] preoperatively vs 3.4    2.6 postoperatively, p = 0.50). In the fusion cohort, the mean VAS scores improved from 5.8    3.2 to 3.0    2.3 (p < 0.01). Excellent or good Odom outcomes were observed in 76.7% of the @entity1 in the laminoplasty cohort and 80.8% of those in the fusion cohort (p = 0.71). In the fusion group, complications were twice as common and implant costs were nearly 3 times as high as in the laminoplasty group. When cases involving fusions crossing the cervicothoracic junction were excluded, analysis showed similar complication rates in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: @entity1 treated with laminoplasty and @entity1 treated with laminectomy and fusion had similar improvements in Nurick scores, mJOA scores, and Odom outcomes. @entity1 who underwent fusion typically had higher preoperative @entity4048 scores, but their @entity4048 improved significantly after surgery. There was no significant change in the @entity4048 scores of @entity1 treated with laminoplasty. Our series suggests cervical fusion significantly reduces @entity4048 in @entity1 with @entity602 , but that the cost of the implant and rate of reoperation are greater than in laminoplasty.

Treatment of cervical XXXX : a cost and outcome comparison of laminoplasty versus laminectomy and lateral mass fusion.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['Patients', 'patients', 'patient'] @entity1513 :: ('MESH:D007738', 'Disease') :: ['kyphosis'] @entity602 :: ('MESH:D013118', 'Disease') :: ['stenotic myelopathy'] @entity4048 :: ('MESH:D019547', 'Disease') :: ['neck pain'] @entity850 :: ('MESH:D003251', 'Disease') :: ['stenosis'] @entity4720 :: ('MESH:D055009', 'Disease') :: ['spondylosis'] @entity3057 :: ('MESH:D017887', 'Disease') :: ['ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament']
@entity602 :: (MESH:D013118,Disease) :: ['stenotic myelopathy']
