↓ Skip to main content

Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of spondylotic cervical myelopathy: short-term follow-up

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of spondylotic cervical myelopathy: short-term follow-up
Published in
European Spine Journal, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00586-016-4746-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel J. Blizzard, Adam M. Caputo, Charles Z. Sheets, Mitchell R. Klement, Keith W. Michael, Robert E. Isaacs, Christopher R. Brown

Abstract

Laminoplasty and laminectomy with fusion are two common procedures for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Controversy remains regarding the superior surgical treatment. To compare short-term follow-up of laminoplasty to laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Retrospective review comparing all patients undergoing surgical treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy by a single surgeon. All patients undergoing laminoplasty or laminectomy with fusion by a single surgeon over a 5-year period (2007-2011). Cervical alignment and range of motion on pre- and post-operative radiographs and clinical outcome measures including Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, neck disability index (NDI), short form-12 mental (SF-12M) and physical (SF-12P) composite scores and visual analog pain scores for neck (VAS-N) and arm (VAS-A). Patients undergoing laminoplasty or laminectomy with fusion by a single surgeon were reviewed. Cohorts of 41 laminoplasty patients and 31 laminectomy with fusion patients were selected based on strict criteria. The cohorts were well matched based on pre-operative clinical scores, radiographic measurements, and demographics. The average follow-up was 19.2 months for laminoplasty and 18.2 months for laminectomy with fusion. Evaluated outcomes included Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, neck disability index (NDI), short form-12 (SF-12), visual analog pain scores (VAS), cervical sagittal alignment, cervical range of motion, length of stay, cost and complications. The improvement in JOA, SF-12 and VAS scores was similar in the two cohorts after surgery. There was no significant change in cervical sagittal alignment in either cohort. Range-of-motion decreased in both cohorts, but to a greater degree after laminectomy with fusion. C5 nerve root palsy and infection were the most common complications in both cohorts. Laminectomy with fusion was associated with a higher rate of C5 nerve root palsy and overall complications. The average hospital length of stay and cost were significantly less with laminoplasty. This study provides evidence that laminoplasty may be superior to laminectomy with fusion in preserving cervical range of motion, reducing hospital stay and minimizing cost. However, the significance of these differences remains unclear, as laminoplasty clinical outcome scores were generally comparable to laminectomy with fusion.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 22%
Student > Postgraduate 4 22%
Researcher 3 17%
Other 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 50%
Unspecified 4 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Other 2 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 January 2017.
All research outputs
#9,376,835
of 12,221,475 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#1,461
of 3,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,176
of 332,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#41
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,221,475 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,031 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,647 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.