Microendoscopic decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

OBJECT Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is a common cervical degenerative disease that affects the elderly population. Spinal cord decompression is achieved through various anterior and posterior approaches including anterior cervical decompression and fusion, laminectomy, laminoplasty, and combined approaches. The authors describe another option, minimally invasive endoscopically assisted decompression of stenosis (MEDS), which obviates the need for muscle dissection and disruption of the posterior tension band, a cause of postlaminectomy kyphosis. METHODS The authors conducted a retrospective study of 10 patients with CSM who underwent MEDS from January 2002 through July 2012. Data were collected on demographics, preoperative and postoperative Nurick scores, postoperative Odom scores, and preoperative and postoperative Cobb angles. RESULTS The mean patient age (± SD) was 67 ± 7.7 years; 8 patients were male. The average number of disc levels operated on was 2.2 (range 1-4). The mean Nurick score was 1.6 ± 0.7 preoperatively and improved to 0.3 ± 0.7 postoperatively (p < 0.0005). The postoperative Odom scores indicated excellent outcomes for 4 patients, good for 3, fair for 2, and poor for 1. The average preoperative focal Cobb angle at the disc levels operated on was -0.43º ± 1.9º. The average Cobb angle at the last follow-up visit was 0.25° ± 1.6° (p = 0.6). The average follow-up time was 18.9 ± 32.1 months. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS For selected patients with CSM, whose pathologic changes are primarily posterior and who have acceptable preoperative lordosis, MEDS is an alternative to open laminectomy and laminoplasty.

[1]  Michael Y. Wang,et al.  A comparison of acute hospital charges after tubular versus open microdiskectomy. , 2013, World neurosurgery.

[2]  Hong Cheng,et al.  Prevalence of Adjacent Segment Degeneration After Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis , 2013, Spine.

[3]  Brandon J. Rebholz,et al.  Is posterior fusion necessary with laminectomy in the cervical spine? , 2012, Surgical neurology international.

[4]  K. Song,et al.  Efficacy of multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus corpectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a minimum 5-year follow-up study , 2012, European Spine Journal.

[5]  C. Kachramanoglou,et al.  Cervical Laminectomy vs Laminoplasty: Is There a Difference in Outcome and Postoperative Pain? , 2012, Neurosurgery.

[6]  Michael Y. Wang,et al.  A Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing Expansile Cervical Laminoplasty and Cervical Laminectomy and Fusion for Multilevel Cervical Myelopathy , 2012, Neurosurgery.

[7]  H. Miyamoto,et al.  Prospective cohort study of mild cervical spondylotic myelopathy without surgical treatment. , 2012, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[8]  M. McGirt,et al.  Comparative analysis of perioperative surgical site infection after minimally invasive versus open posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of hospital billing and discharge data from 5170 patients. , 2011, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[9]  E. Benzel,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness of Ventral vs Dorsal Surgery for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy , 2011, Neurosurgery.

[10]  Joseph S. Cheng,et al.  Post-Operative Infection after Minimally Invasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF): Literature Review and Cost Analysis , 2011, Minimally invasive neurosurgery : MIN.

[11]  Michael Y. Wang Percutaneous thoracolumbar pedicle screw fixation: is it time to revisit spinal fracture treatment? , 2010, World neurosurgery.

[12]  E. Klineberg Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a review of the evidence. , 2010, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[13]  A. Minamide,et al.  Clinical outcomes of microendoscopic decompression surgery for cervical myelopathy , 2010, European Spine Journal.

[14]  E. Benzel,et al.  Effective lordosis: analysis of sagittal spinal canal alignment in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. , 2009, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[15]  H. Baba,et al.  Cervical spondylotic myelopathy associated with kyphosis or sagittal sigmoid alignment: outcome after anterior or posterior decompression. , 2009, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[16]  R. Fessler,et al.  Surgical site infection rates after minimally invasive spinal surgery. , 2009, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[17]  Lacey E. Bresnahan,et al.  Biomechanical comparison of traditional and minimally invasive intradural tumor exposures using finite element analysis. , 2009, Clinical biomechanics.

[18]  Lacey E. Bresnahan,et al.  A Biomechanical Evaluation of Graded Posterior Element Removal for Treatment of Lumbar Stenosis: Comparison of a Minimally Invasive Approach With Two Standard Laminectomy Techniques , 2009, Spine.

[19]  E. Kirsch,et al.  Percutaneous multilevel decompressive laminectomy, foraminotomy, and instrumented fusion for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and myelopathy: assessment of feasibility and surgical technique. , 2007, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[20]  R. Fessler,et al.  Posterior minimally invasive approaches for the cervical spine. , 2007, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[21]  P. Santiago,et al.  MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF CERVICAL SPONDYLOSIS , 2007, Neurosurgery.

[22]  C. Shaffrey,et al.  DORSAL SURGERY FOR MYELOPATHY AND MYELORADICULOPATHY , 2007, Neurosurgery.

[23]  R. Fessler,et al.  The development of minimally invasive spine surgery. , 2006, Neurosurgery clinics of North America.

[24]  Edward C Benzel,et al.  Stretch-associated Injury in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: New Concept and Review , 2005, Neurosurgery.

[25]  E. Benzel,et al.  Cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated with corpectomy: technique and results in 44 patients. , 1996, Neurosurgical focus.

[26]  R Vanderby,et al.  Cervical stability after foraminotomy. A biomechanical in vitro analysis. , 1992, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.