颈椎后路单开门椎管扩大椎板成形术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病疗效的研究
|
摘要
目的：
1.比较Centerpiece支撑颈椎后路单开门椎管扩大椎板成形术与锚定法椎板成形术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效
2.比较Centerpiece支撑颈椎后路单开门椎管扩大椎板成形术与颈椎前路椎体次全切植骨融合术治疗多节段后纵韧带骨化症的疗效比较
3.椎板成形术与颈椎前路减压术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的meta分析
方法：
1. Centerpiece支撑椎板成形术与锚定法椎板成形术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效比较：将2010年10月至2012年10月在华中科技大学同济医学院附属同济医院确诊为多节段脊髓型颈椎病后手术治疗并成功随访的67名患者为研究对象。其中接受Centerpiece支撑椎板成形术的45例为实验组（C组），接受锚定法椎板成形术的22例为对照组（A组）。观察一般指标（患者的性别、年龄、神经症状时间及随访时间）、神经症状指标（术前、术后JOA分数及术后JOA改善率）、影像学指标（术前术后椎管矢状径、术后椎管扩大率、术前术后ROM及术后ROM保存率）和并发症的发病率及严重程度。改良了椎板成形术后并发症严重程度评价表并应用于本研究评价两组的并发症发病情况。
2. Centerpiece支撑椎板成形术与颈椎前路椎体次全切植骨融合术治疗多节段后纵韧带骨化症的疗效比较：2010年10月至2012年10月在华中科技大学同济医学院附属同济医院确诊为多节段后纵韧带骨化症后接受Centerpiece支撑椎板成形术的17例（LAMP组）与接受颈椎前路椎体次全切植骨融合内固定术的11例（CORP组）为研究对象。观察患者的一般指标、神经症状指标、影像学指标及并发症发病情况。
3.椎板成形术与颈椎前路减压融合术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效及手术安全性的Meta分析：首先设计关键问题，在EMBASE、PubMed、The Cochrane library数据库采用关键词检索文献，通过纳入排除工作选出符合标准的文献。从选出的文献提取JOA改善率、ROM保存率、手术时间及术中出血量的相关数据造出结果提取表。将相同指标的数据用RevMan5.1软件进行Meta分析，分别评价JOA改善率、手术时间及术中出血量。不能进行数据合并的指标，进行描述性分析。
结果：
1. Centerpiece支撑椎板成形术与锚定法椎板成形术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效比较：分共有67例符合纳入标准成功随访，其中男48例，女19例，年龄40-79岁，平均年龄为60.3岁。采用Centerpiece支撑方法行手术治疗的患者为45例（C组），采用锚定法行手术治疗的患者为22例（A组）。在患者年龄、随访时间及手术阶段两组之间未发现统计学差异。C组的神经症状出现时间为38.2月，A组为10.4月，有统计学的差异(p<0.05)。C组的术前平均JOA分数为10.1，A组术前平均JOA分数为9.7，两组之间无统计学差异。C组和A组的平均JOA改善率（RR）各为66.4%及61.2%，C组的平均JOA改善率稍微高于A组，但未见统计学差异（p>0.05）。C组的平均手术时间为185.8分钟，A组为191.0分钟；C组和A组的平均出血量为440.0ml及515.9ml，两组之间在手术时间及出血量未发现明显的差异。C组与A组之间在术前及术后C5水平椎管矢状径无明显差异，但术后椎管扩大率有明显统计学的差异：A组均为60.5%，C组均为47.5%（p<0.05）。两组的术前术后ROM保存率无明显差异。两组的术前术后ROM及其保存率无明显差异。67例患者中22例（32.8%）患者到末次随访时有轴性症状，11例（16.4%）患者诉颈椎运动障碍，10例（14.9%）患者有C5神经根麻痹。轴性症状的发病率在C组（33.3%）稍微高于A组（31.8%），但无统计学差异。A组的C5神经根麻痹发病率(27.3%)明显高于C组（8.9%）(p<0.05)。评估颈椎活动障碍症状以患者的主诉为主进行，A组（18.2%）稍微高于C组（15.6%），但无统计学差异。本研究采用新造的颈椎后路椎管成形术并发症重症度评分表，分析并发症的重症度分布情况。有轴性症状的22例患者中50%为Ⅲ度；Ⅴ度为4.5%。颈椎活动障碍症状发现于11例患者中45.4%为Ⅰ度；Ⅲ度为9.1%；Ⅴ度为9.1%。在10例患者C5神经根麻痹存在，其中60%为Ⅱ度；未见可屈肘关节不可抬上臂的病例（Ⅳ度）。
2. Centerpiece支撑椎板成形术与锚定法椎板成形术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效比较：确诊后纵韧带骨化，行手术治疗的28名患者中男21例，女7例，平均年龄为60.4岁，平均随访时间为18.6月。其中椎板成形术的患者17例（LAMP组），椎体次全切植骨融合术的患者11例（CORP组）。两组之间平均年龄、随访时间及神经症状出现时间未发现明显的差异。全体28名患者的平均术前JOA分数为9.7，术后恢复到14.4，其JOA改善率为64.2%。CORP组的术前JOA分数为9.0，术后JOA分数为14.3，平均JOA改善率为65.5%。LAMP组的平均术前JOA分数为10.2，术后JOA分数均为14.5，其平均JOA改善率为63.4%。术前、术后JOA分数及JOA改善率两组之间无统计学差异，但CORP组的改善率稍微高于LAMP组。平均术中出血量及手术时间两组之间有明显的差异。CORP组的平均手术时间为332.9分钟明显高于LAMP组的平均手术时间为194.6分钟（(p<0.05）。CORP组的平均出血量也高于LAMP组，分别为754.5ml,376.5ml (p<0.05).两组之间手术节段数有明显的差异：CORP组为2.5节段，LAMP组为4.2节段，CORP组明显少于LAMP组（p<0.05）。在术前术后颈椎X线平片上，全体的平均术前ROM为32.8°，术后平均ROM为19.6°，平均ROM保存率为63.8%。CORP组的术前平均ROM为27.7°，术后减少到16.7°；LAMP组的术前平均ROM为36.0°，术后减少到21.5°。两组的ROM保存率各有63.0%及64.5%，未发现统计学差异。平均术前C2-C7角度在CORP组术前为11.5°术后增加到16.2°，而LAMP组的术前为13.6°术后减少到9.1°（p<0.05）。在末次随访时，CORP组未发生反弓现象，而LAMP组中有3例反弓病例。CORP组在手术当中3例发生脑脊液漏；4例在手术之后诉食管异物感及吞咽困难；出现声音嘶哑的有3例。LAMP组的17名患者中有6例术后发生轴性症状，有3例出现C5神经根麻痹。
3.椎板成形术与颈椎前路减压融合术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效及手术安全性的Meta分析：检索后共有7篇纳入系统分析。所纳入的7项研究中5项研究的资料比较LAMP组与ADF组的JOA改善率。异质性检验：Chi2=16.21，I2=69%，P=0.006，两组差异有统计学意义，合并标准化均值差(SMD)为-0.27，95%CI为-0.65~1.10,两组之间的差异无统计学意义，即两组的JOA改善率无明显差异。所纳入的7项研究中5项均报道了手术时间。异质性检验：Chi2=35.93，I2=89%，P<0.00001，两组差异有统计学意义，Meta分析结果显示两组之间的合并SMD为-1.39，95%CI为-2.16~-0.0.62。两组之间的差异有统计学意义，即LAMP组的手术时间短于ADF组。所纳入的7项研究中5项均报道了术中出血量。异质性检验：Chi2=9.39，I2=57%，P=0.05，两组差异有统计学意义，Meta分析结果显示两组之间的合并SMD为-0.63，95%CI为-1.04~-0.33。两组之间的差异有统计学意义，即LAMP组的术中出血量少于ADF组。纳入比较的7项研究中3项报道了实验组与对照组的颈椎活动度变化。但2项研究未报道标准偏差，因此无法进行Meta分析。两项研究的随访时间长于10年，其中一项未发现两组之间的统计学差异，另一项研究报道了LAMP组的ROM保存率低于ADF组（p<0.05）。另一项研究随访时间5年，报道两组之间无统计学差异。
结论：
1.在多节段脊髓型颈椎病治疗，Centerpiece支撑椎板成形术与锚定法椎板成形术之间的JOA改善率、手术时间及出血量无明显差异；Centerpiece支撑方法比锚定法对椎管扩大率的控制性好、C5神经根麻痹发病率低以及颈椎运动障碍症状发生率低。
2.在多节段后纵韧带骨化症治疗，Centerpiece支撑椎管成形术与颈前路椎体次全切植骨融合内固定术相比，手术时间短且出血量少，两组之间JOA改善率无明显差异。在颈椎后凸畸形存在的情况下颈椎前路椎体次全切植骨融合内固定术优于椎板成形术。
3. Meta分析示在3年以上随访椎板成形术的神经功能恢复程度与颈前路减压融合术相似，手术时间短、出血量少；两组的ROM保存率无明显差异。
Objectives:
1. To compare the clinical efficacy of laminoplasty with Centerpiece fixation versusanchor fixation for MCSM.
2. To compare the clinical efficacy of laminoplasty with Centerpiece fixation versusanterior cervical subtotal corpectomy and fusion for MOPLL.
3. To evaluate clinical efficacy and safety of cervical laminoplasty and anterior cervicaldecompression and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy
Methods：
1. Laminoplasties with Centerpiece fixation and with Anchor method for MCSM werecompared. Between October2010and October2012,67patients underwent cervicalexpansive laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy in OrthopedicDepartment of Tongji Hospital were enrolled in this study. Among them45patientsunderwent laminoplasty with Centerpiece fixation (Group C) and22patients underwentlaminoplasty with Anchor fixation (Group A). Common preoperative findings (sex, ageand symptom duration), neurological findings (pre and postoperative JOA scores andrecovery rate of JOA score), radiological findings (pre and postoperative AP diameter,enlargement rate of AP diameter, pre and postoperative ROM and preservation rate ofROM) and incidence of complication were observed. In this part we designed newtables of evaluation of complication severity for laminoplasty and applied to evaluatecomplications of two groups in this study.
2. Laminoplasty with Centerpiece and corpectomy with fusion for multilevel OPLL werecompared.28patients who underwent surgical treatment for MOPLL from October 2010to October2012in Orthopaedic department of Tongji hospital, were enrolled inthis study. From them,17patients received laminoplasty with Centerpiece fixation(Group LAMP) and11patients received anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion(Group CORP). The common preoperative clinical findings, neurological findings,radiological findings and complication were observed.
3. Clinical efficacies and operation safeties of laminoplasty and ADF for MCSM werecompared by meta-analysis method. After designing the key question, we formulatedthe search strategy. The databases used in this search were EMBASE, PubMed and TheCochrane library. And the literature search was performed with key words. Accordingthe inclusion and exclusion criteria, appropriate literatures were selected out. Thenvalues of recovery rate of JOA score, preservation rate of ROM, operation time andintraoperative blood loss were extracted from selected literatures. These data wereanalysed using the Revman5.1with meta-analysis method. If the indicators could notbe combined, the descriptive systematic review was used to evaluate them.
Results:
1. In first part,67patients were successfully followed up, including48cases of male and19cases of female. The mean age at surgery was60.3years. Group C was consisted of45cases and Group A was22cases. In preoperative clinical findings, there was nostatistical difference. The symptom period of Group C (38.2months) was significantlylong than of Group A (10.4months). Preoperative JOA score of Group C was10.1andof Group A was9.7, there was no statistical difference between two groups (p>0.05).Recovery rate of JOA score of Group C and Group A were66.4%and61.2%respectively, no significant difference recognized between two groups (p>0.05). Theaverage operation time of Group C (185.8min) similar with Group A (191.0min) andthe intraoperative blood loss had no difference between two groups (440.0mland515.9ml respectively). The sagittal diameters on C5level of two groups had nostatistical difference, but the enlargement rate of AP diameters were significantly different; Group A60.5%，Group C27.5%(p<0.05). In22cases (32.8%) of total67patients appeared axial symptoms, and11cases (16.4%) complained neck movementdisorder, and10cases (14.9%) had C5palsy at the time of last follow-up. Theincidence of C5palsy in Group A (27.3%) significantly higher than in Group C (8.9%)(p<0.05). Former two complications had no statistical difference in incidence. In thecurrent study we applied new designed evaluation table of laminoplasty complicationsand observed severity deviation of complications. Among22cases with axial symptom,50%were grade Ⅲ,4.5%were grade Ⅴ. In11cases with neck movement disorder,45.4%were grade Ⅰ,9.1%were grade Ⅲ,9.1%were grade Ⅴ. In10cases with C5palsy,60%were grade Ⅱ, no observed grade Ⅳ.
2. In second part,28patients were enrolled in this study, male21, female7, the mean agewas60.4years, average follow-up time was18.6months. From them, Group LAMPincluded17cases and Group CORP11cases, between two groups there was nosignificant difference in preoperative common clinical findings. The averagepreoperative JOA score of28cases was9.7, which increased to14.4(mean RR of JOAwas64.2%) after surgery. Mean pre and postoperative JOA score of Group CORP were9.0and14.3, and its recovery rate was65.5%. And the pre and postoperative JOA scoreof Group LAMP were10.2and14.5, and its recovery rate was63.4%, which has nostatistical difference with Group CORP. the intraoperative blood loss of Group CORP(754.5ml in average) was larger than Group LAMP (376.5ml in average) and theoperative time of Group CORP (332.9minutes in average) was longer than GroupLAMP (194minutes in average)(p<0.05). The number of segment of Group CORP was2.5and of Group LAMP was4.2(p<0.05). In the cervical X-ray examination, averagepreoperative ROM was32.8o, postoperative was19.6o, the preservation rate of ROMwas63.8%in average. Preoperative ROM of Group CORP of27.7o decreased to16.7oafter surgery and in Group LAMP36.0o before surgery decreased to21.5o after surgery.The preservation rates of two groups were63.0%and64.5%respectively, and there was no significant difference between two groups. Mean C2-C7angle of GroupCORP was11.5o before surgery, which increased to16.2o after surgery, on the contrary,C2-C7angle of Group LAMP of13.6o decreased to9.1o(p<0.05). At the last follow-upthere was no kyphotic complication in Group CORP, but there were3cases withkyphotic changes in Group LAMP. Group CORP had complications as followed:3cases with CSF leak,4cases with dysphasia and3cases with dysphonia. And GroupLAMP had6cases with axial symptom and3cases with C5nerve rood palsy.
3. In third Part, through the including and excluding process,7citations enrolled tocurrent analysis.5literature compared JOA recovery rate between LAMP group andADF group. Results of heterogeneity test were as followed: Chi2=16.21，I2=69%，P=0.006, there was statistical heterogeneity. The results of Meta-analysis showed thatsynthesized standard mean difference (SMD) was-0.27，95%CI为-0.65~1.10, thedifference in JOA recovery rate between two groups was no statistically significant.5literatures compared operation time between LAMP group and ADF group. Results ofheterogeneity test were as followed: Chi2=35.93, I2=89%, P<0.00001, there wasstatistical heterogeneity. The results of Meta-analysis showed that synthesized SMDwas-1.39,95%CI was-2.16~-0.62, the difference in operation time between twogroups was statistically significant. This says the operation time of LAMP group shorterthan of ADF group. These5literatures also compared intraoperative blood loss betweentwo groups. Results of heterogeneity test were as followed: Chi2=9.39, I2=57%, P=0.05,there was statistical heterogeneity. The results of Meta-analysis showed thatsynthesized SMD was-0.63,95%CI was-1.04~-0.33, the difference in operation timebetween two groups was statistically significant. This means the intraoperative bloodloss of LAMP group less than of ADF group. Although3of8literatures reported ROMchange of two groups, but2of them didn’t record the standard deviation, someta-analysis was not allowed. Two literatures reported follow-up results more than10years, one of them revealed no difference in ROM between two groups, and another one reported statistical difference. And another one literature, which follow-up timewas5years, reported no significant difference in ROM between two groups.
Conclusion:
1. For the multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy, there was no difference in RR ofJOA, operation time and blood loss between Centerpiece fixation laminoplasty andanchor fixation laminoplasty. The enlargement of AP diameter of spinal canal wasbetter controlled in Centerpiece group than anchor group and the incidence of C5palsywas lower.
2. Both laminoplasty with Centerpiece fixation and cervical corpectomy with titaniummesh lead to significant neurological recovery in multilevel OPLL, and there was nosignificant difference in neurological recovery rate between two groups. Laminoplastycohort with Centerpiece fixation tended to have shorter operation time and less bloodloss than cervical corpectomy cohort. So it is believed that laminoplasty may be thepreferred method of treatment for multilevel OPLL in the absence of preoperativekyphosis.
3. In neurological recovery rate there was no significant difference between two methodsfor multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy at more than3year follow-up. Theoperative time of laminoplasty shorter than anterior decompression and fusion, andintraoperative blood loss also less. In the preservation of region of motion was nodifference between two methods. In conclusion laminoplasty is preferred and safer thananterior decompression and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
1.比较Centerpiece支撑颈椎后路单开门椎管扩大椎板成形术与锚定法椎板成形术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效
2.比较Centerpiece支撑颈椎后路单开门椎管扩大椎板成形术与颈椎前路椎体次全切植骨融合术治疗多节段后纵韧带骨化症的疗效比较
3.椎板成形术与颈椎前路减压术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的meta分析
方法：
1. Centerpiece支撑椎板成形术与锚定法椎板成形术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效比较：将2010年10月至2012年10月在华中科技大学同济医学院附属同济医院确诊为多节段脊髓型颈椎病后手术治疗并成功随访的67名患者为研究对象。其中接受Centerpiece支撑椎板成形术的45例为实验组（C组），接受锚定法椎板成形术的22例为对照组（A组）。观察一般指标（患者的性别、年龄、神经症状时间及随访时间）、神经症状指标（术前、术后JOA分数及术后JOA改善率）、影像学指标（术前术后椎管矢状径、术后椎管扩大率、术前术后ROM及术后ROM保存率）和并发症的发病率及严重程度。改良了椎板成形术后并发症严重程度评价表并应用于本研究评价两组的并发症发病情况。
2. Centerpiece支撑椎板成形术与颈椎前路椎体次全切植骨融合术治疗多节段后纵韧带骨化症的疗效比较：2010年10月至2012年10月在华中科技大学同济医学院附属同济医院确诊为多节段后纵韧带骨化症后接受Centerpiece支撑椎板成形术的17例（LAMP组）与接受颈椎前路椎体次全切植骨融合内固定术的11例（CORP组）为研究对象。观察患者的一般指标、神经症状指标、影像学指标及并发症发病情况。
3.椎板成形术与颈椎前路减压融合术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效及手术安全性的Meta分析：首先设计关键问题，在EMBASE、PubMed、The Cochrane library数据库采用关键词检索文献，通过纳入排除工作选出符合标准的文献。从选出的文献提取JOA改善率、ROM保存率、手术时间及术中出血量的相关数据造出结果提取表。将相同指标的数据用RevMan5.1软件进行Meta分析，分别评价JOA改善率、手术时间及术中出血量。不能进行数据合并的指标，进行描述性分析。
结果：
1. Centerpiece支撑椎板成形术与锚定法椎板成形术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效比较：分共有67例符合纳入标准成功随访，其中男48例，女19例，年龄40-79岁，平均年龄为60.3岁。采用Centerpiece支撑方法行手术治疗的患者为45例（C组），采用锚定法行手术治疗的患者为22例（A组）。在患者年龄、随访时间及手术阶段两组之间未发现统计学差异。C组的神经症状出现时间为38.2月，A组为10.4月，有统计学的差异(p<0.05)。C组的术前平均JOA分数为10.1，A组术前平均JOA分数为9.7，两组之间无统计学差异。C组和A组的平均JOA改善率（RR）各为66.4%及61.2%，C组的平均JOA改善率稍微高于A组，但未见统计学差异（p>0.05）。C组的平均手术时间为185.8分钟，A组为191.0分钟；C组和A组的平均出血量为440.0ml及515.9ml，两组之间在手术时间及出血量未发现明显的差异。C组与A组之间在术前及术后C5水平椎管矢状径无明显差异，但术后椎管扩大率有明显统计学的差异：A组均为60.5%，C组均为47.5%（p<0.05）。两组的术前术后ROM保存率无明显差异。两组的术前术后ROM及其保存率无明显差异。67例患者中22例（32.8%）患者到末次随访时有轴性症状，11例（16.4%）患者诉颈椎运动障碍，10例（14.9%）患者有C5神经根麻痹。轴性症状的发病率在C组（33.3%）稍微高于A组（31.8%），但无统计学差异。A组的C5神经根麻痹发病率(27.3%)明显高于C组（8.9%）(p<0.05)。评估颈椎活动障碍症状以患者的主诉为主进行，A组（18.2%）稍微高于C组（15.6%），但无统计学差异。本研究采用新造的颈椎后路椎管成形术并发症重症度评分表，分析并发症的重症度分布情况。有轴性症状的22例患者中50%为Ⅲ度；Ⅴ度为4.5%。颈椎活动障碍症状发现于11例患者中45.4%为Ⅰ度；Ⅲ度为9.1%；Ⅴ度为9.1%。在10例患者C5神经根麻痹存在，其中60%为Ⅱ度；未见可屈肘关节不可抬上臂的病例（Ⅳ度）。
2. Centerpiece支撑椎板成形术与锚定法椎板成形术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效比较：确诊后纵韧带骨化，行手术治疗的28名患者中男21例，女7例，平均年龄为60.4岁，平均随访时间为18.6月。其中椎板成形术的患者17例（LAMP组），椎体次全切植骨融合术的患者11例（CORP组）。两组之间平均年龄、随访时间及神经症状出现时间未发现明显的差异。全体28名患者的平均术前JOA分数为9.7，术后恢复到14.4，其JOA改善率为64.2%。CORP组的术前JOA分数为9.0，术后JOA分数为14.3，平均JOA改善率为65.5%。LAMP组的平均术前JOA分数为10.2，术后JOA分数均为14.5，其平均JOA改善率为63.4%。术前、术后JOA分数及JOA改善率两组之间无统计学差异，但CORP组的改善率稍微高于LAMP组。平均术中出血量及手术时间两组之间有明显的差异。CORP组的平均手术时间为332.9分钟明显高于LAMP组的平均手术时间为194.6分钟（(p<0.05）。CORP组的平均出血量也高于LAMP组，分别为754.5ml,376.5ml (p<0.05).两组之间手术节段数有明显的差异：CORP组为2.5节段，LAMP组为4.2节段，CORP组明显少于LAMP组（p<0.05）。在术前术后颈椎X线平片上，全体的平均术前ROM为32.8°，术后平均ROM为19.6°，平均ROM保存率为63.8%。CORP组的术前平均ROM为27.7°，术后减少到16.7°；LAMP组的术前平均ROM为36.0°，术后减少到21.5°。两组的ROM保存率各有63.0%及64.5%，未发现统计学差异。平均术前C2-C7角度在CORP组术前为11.5°术后增加到16.2°，而LAMP组的术前为13.6°术后减少到9.1°（p<0.05）。在末次随访时，CORP组未发生反弓现象，而LAMP组中有3例反弓病例。CORP组在手术当中3例发生脑脊液漏；4例在手术之后诉食管异物感及吞咽困难；出现声音嘶哑的有3例。LAMP组的17名患者中有6例术后发生轴性症状，有3例出现C5神经根麻痹。
3.椎板成形术与颈椎前路减压融合术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效及手术安全性的Meta分析：检索后共有7篇纳入系统分析。所纳入的7项研究中5项研究的资料比较LAMP组与ADF组的JOA改善率。异质性检验：Chi2=16.21，I2=69%，P=0.006，两组差异有统计学意义，合并标准化均值差(SMD)为-0.27，95%CI为-0.65~1.10,两组之间的差异无统计学意义，即两组的JOA改善率无明显差异。所纳入的7项研究中5项均报道了手术时间。异质性检验：Chi2=35.93，I2=89%，P<0.00001，两组差异有统计学意义，Meta分析结果显示两组之间的合并SMD为-1.39，95%CI为-2.16~-0.0.62。两组之间的差异有统计学意义，即LAMP组的手术时间短于ADF组。所纳入的7项研究中5项均报道了术中出血量。异质性检验：Chi2=9.39，I2=57%，P=0.05，两组差异有统计学意义，Meta分析结果显示两组之间的合并SMD为-0.63，95%CI为-1.04~-0.33。两组之间的差异有统计学意义，即LAMP组的术中出血量少于ADF组。纳入比较的7项研究中3项报道了实验组与对照组的颈椎活动度变化。但2项研究未报道标准偏差，因此无法进行Meta分析。两项研究的随访时间长于10年，其中一项未发现两组之间的统计学差异，另一项研究报道了LAMP组的ROM保存率低于ADF组（p<0.05）。另一项研究随访时间5年，报道两组之间无统计学差异。
结论：
1.在多节段脊髓型颈椎病治疗，Centerpiece支撑椎板成形术与锚定法椎板成形术之间的JOA改善率、手术时间及出血量无明显差异；Centerpiece支撑方法比锚定法对椎管扩大率的控制性好、C5神经根麻痹发病率低以及颈椎运动障碍症状发生率低。
2.在多节段后纵韧带骨化症治疗，Centerpiece支撑椎管成形术与颈前路椎体次全切植骨融合内固定术相比，手术时间短且出血量少，两组之间JOA改善率无明显差异。在颈椎后凸畸形存在的情况下颈椎前路椎体次全切植骨融合内固定术优于椎板成形术。
3. Meta分析示在3年以上随访椎板成形术的神经功能恢复程度与颈前路减压融合术相似，手术时间短、出血量少；两组的ROM保存率无明显差异。
Objectives:
1. To compare the clinical efficacy of laminoplasty with Centerpiece fixation versusanchor fixation for MCSM.
2. To compare the clinical efficacy of laminoplasty with Centerpiece fixation versusanterior cervical subtotal corpectomy and fusion for MOPLL.
3. To evaluate clinical efficacy and safety of cervical laminoplasty and anterior cervicaldecompression and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy
Methods：
1. Laminoplasties with Centerpiece fixation and with Anchor method for MCSM werecompared. Between October2010and October2012,67patients underwent cervicalexpansive laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy in OrthopedicDepartment of Tongji Hospital were enrolled in this study. Among them45patientsunderwent laminoplasty with Centerpiece fixation (Group C) and22patients underwentlaminoplasty with Anchor fixation (Group A). Common preoperative findings (sex, ageand symptom duration), neurological findings (pre and postoperative JOA scores andrecovery rate of JOA score), radiological findings (pre and postoperative AP diameter,enlargement rate of AP diameter, pre and postoperative ROM and preservation rate ofROM) and incidence of complication were observed. In this part we designed newtables of evaluation of complication severity for laminoplasty and applied to evaluatecomplications of two groups in this study.
2. Laminoplasty with Centerpiece and corpectomy with fusion for multilevel OPLL werecompared.28patients who underwent surgical treatment for MOPLL from October 2010to October2012in Orthopaedic department of Tongji hospital, were enrolled inthis study. From them,17patients received laminoplasty with Centerpiece fixation(Group LAMP) and11patients received anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion(Group CORP). The common preoperative clinical findings, neurological findings,radiological findings and complication were observed.
3. Clinical efficacies and operation safeties of laminoplasty and ADF for MCSM werecompared by meta-analysis method. After designing the key question, we formulatedthe search strategy. The databases used in this search were EMBASE, PubMed and TheCochrane library. And the literature search was performed with key words. Accordingthe inclusion and exclusion criteria, appropriate literatures were selected out. Thenvalues of recovery rate of JOA score, preservation rate of ROM, operation time andintraoperative blood loss were extracted from selected literatures. These data wereanalysed using the Revman5.1with meta-analysis method. If the indicators could notbe combined, the descriptive systematic review was used to evaluate them.
Results:
1. In first part,67patients were successfully followed up, including48cases of male and19cases of female. The mean age at surgery was60.3years. Group C was consisted of45cases and Group A was22cases. In preoperative clinical findings, there was nostatistical difference. The symptom period of Group C (38.2months) was significantlylong than of Group A (10.4months). Preoperative JOA score of Group C was10.1andof Group A was9.7, there was no statistical difference between two groups (p>0.05).Recovery rate of JOA score of Group C and Group A were66.4%and61.2%respectively, no significant difference recognized between two groups (p>0.05). Theaverage operation time of Group C (185.8min) similar with Group A (191.0min) andthe intraoperative blood loss had no difference between two groups (440.0mland515.9ml respectively). The sagittal diameters on C5level of two groups had nostatistical difference, but the enlargement rate of AP diameters were significantly different; Group A60.5%，Group C27.5%(p<0.05). In22cases (32.8%) of total67patients appeared axial symptoms, and11cases (16.4%) complained neck movementdisorder, and10cases (14.9%) had C5palsy at the time of last follow-up. Theincidence of C5palsy in Group A (27.3%) significantly higher than in Group C (8.9%)(p<0.05). Former two complications had no statistical difference in incidence. In thecurrent study we applied new designed evaluation table of laminoplasty complicationsand observed severity deviation of complications. Among22cases with axial symptom,50%were grade Ⅲ,4.5%were grade Ⅴ. In11cases with neck movement disorder,45.4%were grade Ⅰ,9.1%were grade Ⅲ,9.1%were grade Ⅴ. In10cases with C5palsy,60%were grade Ⅱ, no observed grade Ⅳ.
2. In second part,28patients were enrolled in this study, male21, female7, the mean agewas60.4years, average follow-up time was18.6months. From them, Group LAMPincluded17cases and Group CORP11cases, between two groups there was nosignificant difference in preoperative common clinical findings. The averagepreoperative JOA score of28cases was9.7, which increased to14.4(mean RR of JOAwas64.2%) after surgery. Mean pre and postoperative JOA score of Group CORP were9.0and14.3, and its recovery rate was65.5%. And the pre and postoperative JOA scoreof Group LAMP were10.2and14.5, and its recovery rate was63.4%, which has nostatistical difference with Group CORP. the intraoperative blood loss of Group CORP(754.5ml in average) was larger than Group LAMP (376.5ml in average) and theoperative time of Group CORP (332.9minutes in average) was longer than GroupLAMP (194minutes in average)(p<0.05). The number of segment of Group CORP was2.5and of Group LAMP was4.2(p<0.05). In the cervical X-ray examination, averagepreoperative ROM was32.8o, postoperative was19.6o, the preservation rate of ROMwas63.8%in average. Preoperative ROM of Group CORP of27.7o decreased to16.7oafter surgery and in Group LAMP36.0o before surgery decreased to21.5o after surgery.The preservation rates of two groups were63.0%and64.5%respectively, and there was no significant difference between two groups. Mean C2-C7angle of GroupCORP was11.5o before surgery, which increased to16.2o after surgery, on the contrary,C2-C7angle of Group LAMP of13.6o decreased to9.1o(p<0.05). At the last follow-upthere was no kyphotic complication in Group CORP, but there were3cases withkyphotic changes in Group LAMP. Group CORP had complications as followed:3cases with CSF leak,4cases with dysphasia and3cases with dysphonia. And GroupLAMP had6cases with axial symptom and3cases with C5nerve rood palsy.
3. In third Part, through the including and excluding process,7citations enrolled tocurrent analysis.5literature compared JOA recovery rate between LAMP group andADF group. Results of heterogeneity test were as followed: Chi2=16.21，I2=69%，P=0.006, there was statistical heterogeneity. The results of Meta-analysis showed thatsynthesized standard mean difference (SMD) was-0.27，95%CI为-0.65~1.10, thedifference in JOA recovery rate between two groups was no statistically significant.5literatures compared operation time between LAMP group and ADF group. Results ofheterogeneity test were as followed: Chi2=35.93, I2=89%, P<0.00001, there wasstatistical heterogeneity. The results of Meta-analysis showed that synthesized SMDwas-1.39,95%CI was-2.16~-0.62, the difference in operation time between twogroups was statistically significant. This says the operation time of LAMP group shorterthan of ADF group. These5literatures also compared intraoperative blood loss betweentwo groups. Results of heterogeneity test were as followed: Chi2=9.39, I2=57%, P=0.05,there was statistical heterogeneity. The results of Meta-analysis showed thatsynthesized SMD was-0.63,95%CI was-1.04~-0.33, the difference in operation timebetween two groups was statistically significant. This means the intraoperative bloodloss of LAMP group less than of ADF group. Although3of8literatures reported ROMchange of two groups, but2of them didn’t record the standard deviation, someta-analysis was not allowed. Two literatures reported follow-up results more than10years, one of them revealed no difference in ROM between two groups, and another one reported statistical difference. And another one literature, which follow-up timewas5years, reported no significant difference in ROM between two groups.
Conclusion:
1. For the multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy, there was no difference in RR ofJOA, operation time and blood loss between Centerpiece fixation laminoplasty andanchor fixation laminoplasty. The enlargement of AP diameter of spinal canal wasbetter controlled in Centerpiece group than anchor group and the incidence of C5palsywas lower.
2. Both laminoplasty with Centerpiece fixation and cervical corpectomy with titaniummesh lead to significant neurological recovery in multilevel OPLL, and there was nosignificant difference in neurological recovery rate between two groups. Laminoplastycohort with Centerpiece fixation tended to have shorter operation time and less bloodloss than cervical corpectomy cohort. So it is believed that laminoplasty may be thepreferred method of treatment for multilevel OPLL in the absence of preoperativekyphosis.
3. In neurological recovery rate there was no significant difference between two methodsfor multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy at more than3year follow-up. Theoperative time of laminoplasty shorter than anterior decompression and fusion, andintraoperative blood loss also less. In the preservation of region of motion was nodifference between two methods. In conclusion laminoplasty is preferred and safer thananterior decompression and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
引文
1. Northover, J.R., Wild, J.B., Braybrooke, J.&Blanco, J. The epidemiology ofcervical spondylotic myelopathy. Skeletal Radiol2012,41,1543-1546.
2. Fehlings, M.G.&Skaf, G. A review of the pathophysiology of cervical spondyloticmyelopathy with insights for potential novel mechanisms drawn from traumaticspinal cord injury. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1998,23,2730-2737.
3. Matz, P.G. Does nonoperative management play a role in the treatment of cervicalspondylotic myelopathy? Spine J2006,6,175S-181S.
4. Hirabayashi, K., et al. Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinalstenotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1983,8,693-699.
5. Park, A.E.&Heller, J.G. Cervical laminoplasty: use of a novel titanium plate tomaintain canal expansion--surgical technique. J Spinal Disord Tech2004,17,265-271.
6.董竹林,董荣华,韩慧,蔡迎&李永全. Centerpiece脊柱内固定系统在颈椎管狭窄症后路手术中的应用.天津医药2011,39,7,646-648.
7.汪雷, et al.单开门颈椎管扩大成形Centerpiece钛板内固定术治疗颈椎管狭窄症的早期临床疗效.中国脊柱脊髓杂志2011,21,8,654-658.
8. Gu, Y.J., Hu, Y., Ma, W.H., Xu, R.M.&Zhao, H.Y.[Clinical application ofcenterpiece titanium plate fixation in open door laminoplasty]. Zhongguo Gu Shang2012,25,726-729.
1. Montgomery, D.M.&Brower, R.S. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clinicalsyndrome and natural history. Orthop Clin North Am1992,23,487-493.
2. Moore, A.P.&Blumhardt, L.D. A prospective survey of the causes of non-traumaticspastic paraparesis and tetraparesis in585patients. Spinal Cord1997,35,361-367.
3. Kaminsky, S.B., Clark, C.R.&Traynelis, V.C. Operative treatment of cervicalspondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy. A comparison of laminectomy andlaminoplasty at five year average follow-up. Iowa Orthop J2004,24,95-105.
4. Nakano, N., Nakano, T.&Nakano, K. Comparison of the results of laminectomy andopen-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myeloradiculopathy and ossification ofthe posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1988,13,792-794.
5. Cunningham, M.R., Hershman, S.&Bendo, J. Systematic review of cohort studiescomparing surgical treatments for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2010,35,537-543.
6. Hirai, T., et al. Middle-term results of a prospective comparative study of anteriordecompression with fusion and posterior decompression with laminoplasty for thetreatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2011,36,1940-1947.
7. Koakutsu, T., et al. Anterior decompression and fusion versus laminoplasty for cervicalmyelopathy caused by soft disc herniation: a prospective multicenter study. J OrthopSci2010,15,71-78.
8. Liu, T., Yang, H.L., Xu, Y.Z., Qi, R.F.&Guan, H.Q. ACDF with the PCB cage-platesystem versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J SpinalDisord Tech2011,24,213-220.
9. Sakai, K., et al. Five-year follow-up evaluation of surgical treatment for cervicalmyelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a prospectivecomparative study of anterior decompression and fusion with floating method versuslaminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2012,37,367-376.
10. Shibuya, S., et al. Differences between subtotal corpectomy and laminoplasty forcervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spinal Cord2010,48,214-220.
11. Park, A.E.&Heller, J.G. Cervical laminoplasty: use of a novel titanium plate tomaintain canal expansion--surgical technique. J Spinal Disord Tech2004,17,265-271.
12. Wang, J.M., Roh, K.J., Kim, D.J.&Kim, D.W. A new method of stabilising theelevated laminae in open-door laminoplasty using an anchor system. J Bone Joint SurgBr1998,80,1005-1008.
13.孙宇,潘.陈.朱.刘.蔡.单开门颈椎管扩大椎板成形术对颈椎运动的影响.中国脊柱脊髓杂志2003,13(4),212-215.
14.张学利,王善金,王云力&刘献强.锚定法单开门椎管成形术对术后轴性症状和颈椎曲度影响的病例对照研究.中国骨伤2008,21(10),759-761.
15.张绍文,米仲祥,李盛华,张德宏&邓强.锚定法改良单开门颈椎管成形术配合中药热敷防治术后轴性症状的疗效观察.中国骨伤2008,21(12),934-935.
16.魏新荣,移平,谭明生&杨峰.“锚定法”单开门椎管成形术治疗脊髓型颈椎病52例分析.中国误诊学杂志2010,10(7),1674-1675.
17.万军,胡炜,张学利&田融.锚定法单开门颈椎管扩大成形术治疗氟骨症颈椎管狭窄症.中国骨与关节损伤杂志2010,25(2),103-104.
18.孙晓&盛路新.“锚定法”在单开门椎管扩大成型术中的应用.中国现代医药杂志2007,9(7),109.
19. Yu, H.L., et al. Laminoplasty using Twinfix suture anchors to maintain cervical canalexpansion. Eur Spine J19,1795-1798(2010).
20. Cheng, S.C., Yen, C.H., Kwok, T.K., Wong, W.C.&Mak, K.H. Anterior spinal fusionversus laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a retrospective review. JOrthop Surg (Hong Kong)17,265-268(2009).
21. Mummaneni, P.V., et al. Cervical surgical techniques for the treatment of cervicalspondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine11,130-141(2009).
22. Uchida, K., et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy associated with kyphosis or sagittalsigmoid alignment: outcome after anterior or posterior decompression. J NeurosurgSpine11,521-528(2009).
23.曾云, et al.微型钢板与锚定法在单开门颈椎管扩大成形术中应用的对比研究.中国修复重建外科杂志2011,25(8),946-950.
24. Yonenobu, K., Hosono, N., Iwasaki, M., Asano, M.&Ono, K. Neurologiccomplications of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)16,1277-1282(1991).
25. Xia, Y., Shen, Q., Li, H.&Xu, T. Influence of hinge position on the effectiveness ofexpansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal DisordTech24,514-520(2011).
26. Hosono, N., Yonenobu, K.&Ono, K. Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty. Anoticeable complication. Spine (Phila Pa1976)21,1969-1973(1996).
27. Kawaguchi, Y., Matsui, H., Ishihara, H., Gejo, R.&Yoshino, O. Axial symptoms afteren bloc cervical laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord12,392-395(1999).
28. Wang, S.J., Jiang, S.D., Jiang, L.S.&Dai, L.Y. Axial pain after posterior cervical spinesurgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J20,185-194(2011).
29. Sakaura, H., et al. Preservation of muscles attached to the C2and C7spinous processesrather than subaxial deep extensors reduces adverse effects after cervical laminoplasty.Spine (Phila Pa1976)35, E782-786(2010).
30. Takeuchi, K., et al. Limitations of activities of daily living accompanying reduced neckmobility after cervical laminoplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg127,475-480(2007).
31. Takeuchi, K., et al. Limitation of activities of daily living accompanying reduced neckmobility after laminoplasty preserving or reattaching the semispinalis cervicis into axis.Eur Spine J17,415-420(2008).
32.汪雷, et al.单开门颈椎管扩大成形Centerpiece钛板内固定术治疗颈椎管狭窄症的早期临床疗效.中国脊椎脊髓杂志2011,21(8),956-958.
33. Sakaura, H., Hosono, N., Mukai, Y., Ishii, T.&Yoshikawa, H. C5palsy afterdecompression surgery for cervical myelopathy: review of the literature. Spine (PhilaPa1976)28,2447-2451(2003).
34. Sun, T., et al.[Clinical analysis of C5nerve root palsy in hinge side and differentangles in lamina open-door after expansion of open-door cervical laminoplasty].Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi25,1285-1289(2011).
35. Satomi, K., Nishu, Y., Kohno, T.&Hirabayashi, K. Long-term follow-up studies of open-doorexpansive laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)19,507-510(1994).
1. Chen, Y., et al. Surgical strategy for multilevel severe ossification of posteriorlongitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech2011,24,24-30.
2. Kawano, H., et al. Surgical treatment for ossification of the posterior longitudinalligament of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord1995,8,145-150.
3. Tani, T., et al. Relative safety of anterior microsurgical decompression versuslaminoplasty for cervical myelopathy with a massive ossified posterior longitudinalligament. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2002,27,2491-2498.
4. Tomita, K., Nomura, S., Umeda, S.&Baba, H. Cervical laminoplasty to enlarge thespinal canal in multilevel ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament withmyelopathy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg1988,107,148-153.
5. Morimoto, T., et al. Extensive cervical laminoplasty for patients with long segmentOPLL in the cervical spine: an alternative to the anterior approach. J Clin Neurosci2000,7,217-222.
6. Jain, S.K., et al. Multisegmental cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinalligament: anterior vs posterior approach. Neurol India2005,53,283-285;discussion286.
7. Sakai, K., et al. Five-year follow-up evaluation of surgical treatment for cervicalmyelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: aprospective comparative study of anterior decompression and fusion with floatingmethod versus laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2012,37,367-376.
8. Suda, K., et al. Local kyphosis reduces surgical outcomes of expansive open-doorlaminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2003,28,1258-1262.
9. Iwasaki, M., Kawaguchi, Y., Kimura, T.&Yonenobu, K. Long-term results ofexpansive laminoplasty for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of thecervical spine: more than10years follow up. J Neurosurg2002,96,180-189.
10. Kimura, I., Shingu, H.&Nasu, Y. Long-term follow-up of cervical spondyloticmyelopathy treated by canal-expansive laminoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br1995,77,956-961.
11. Kawaguchi, Y., et al. Progression of ossification of the posterior longitudinalligament following en bloc cervical laminoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2001,83-A,1798-1802.
12. Matsunaga, S., Sakou, T., Taketomi, E.&Komiya, S. Clinical course of patientswith ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a minimum10-year cohortstudy. J Neurosurg2004,100,245-248.
13. Ogawa, Y., et al. Long-term results of expansive open-door laminoplasty forossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine. J NeurosurgSpine2004,1,168-174.
14. Liu, T., Yang, H.L., Xu, Y.Z., Qi, R.F.&Guan, H.Q. ACDF with the PCBcage-plate system versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondyloticmyelopathy. J Spinal Disord Tech2011,24,213-220.
15. Hirai, T., et al. Middle-term results of a prospective comparative study of anteriordecompression with fusion and posterior decompression with laminoplasty for thetreatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2011,36,1940-1947.
16. Koakutsu, T., et al. Anterior decompression and fusion versus laminoplasty forcervical myelopathy caused by soft disc herniation: a prospective multicenter study.J Orthop Sci2010,15,71-78.
17. Sakaura, H., et al. Long-term outcome of laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy dueto disc herniation: a comparative study of laminoplasty and anterior spinal fusion.Spine (Phila Pa1976)2005,30,756-759.
18. Emery, S.E., Bohlman, H.H., Bolesta, M.J.&Jones, P.K. Anterior cervicaldecompression and arthrodesis for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.Two to seventeen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am1998,80,941-951.
19. Riew, K.D., Sethi, N.S., Devney, J., Goette, K.&Choi, K. Complications ofbuttress plate stabilization of cervical corpectomy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1999,24,2404-2410.
20. Wei-bing, X., et al. Reconstructive techniques study after anterior decompression ofmultilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord Tech2009,22,511-515.
21. Smith-Hammond, C.A., et al. Prospective analysis of incidence and risk factors ofdysphagia in spine surgery patients: comparison of anterior cervical, posteriorcervical, and lumbar procedures. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2004,29,1441-1446.
22. McAfee, P.C., et al. Lower incidence of dysphagia with cervical arthroplastycompared with ACDF in a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Spinal DisordTech2010,23,1-8.
23. Riley, L.H.,3rd, Skolasky, R.L., Albert, T.J., Vaccaro, A.R.&Heller, J.G.Dysphagia after anterior cervical decompression and fusion: prevalence and riskfactors from a longitudinal cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2005,30,2564-2569.
24. Bazaz, R., Lee, M.J.&Yoo, J.U. Incidence of dysphagia after anterior cervicalspine surgery: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2002,27,2453-2458.
25. Daniels, S.K., Mahoney, M.C.&Lyons, G.D. Persistent dysphagia and dysphoniafollowing cervical spine surgery. Ear Nose Throat J1998,77,470,473-475.
26. Hee, H.T., Majd, M.E., Holt, R.T., Whitecloud, T.S.,3rd&Pienkowski, D.Complications of multilevel cervical corpectomies and reconstruction with titaniumcages and anterior plating. J Spinal Disord Tech2003,16,1-8; discussion8-9.
27. Fountas, K.N., Kapsalaki, E.Z., Machinis, T.&Robinson, J.S. Extrusion of a screwinto the gastrointestinal tract after anterior cervical spine plating. J Spinal DisordTech2006,19,199-203.
28. Joseph, V., Kumar, G.S.&Rajshekhar, V. Cerebrospinal fluid leak during cervicalcorpectomy for ossified posterior longitudinal ligament: incidence, management,and outcome. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2009,34,491-494.
29. Hannallah, D., Lee, J., Khan, M., Donaldson, W.F.&Kang, J.D. Cerebrospinal fluidleaks following cervical spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am2008,90,1101-1105.
30. Lei, T., et al. Cerebrospinal fluid leakage during anterior approach cervical spinesurgery for severe ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: prevention andtreatment. Orthop Surg2012,4,247-252.
31. Fernyhough, J.C., White, J.I.&LaRocca, H. Fusion rates in multilevel cervicalspondylosis comparing allograft fibula with autograft fibula in126patients. Spine(Phila Pa1976)1991,16, S561-564.
32. Park, A.E.&Heller, J.G. Cervical laminoplasty: use of a novel titanium plate tomaintain canal expansion--surgical technique. J Spinal Disord Tech2004,17,265-271.
33. Gu, Y.J., Hu, Y., Ma, W.H., Xu, R.M.&Zhao, H.Y.[Clinical application ofcenterpiece titanium plate fixation in open door laminoplasty]. Zhongguo Gu Shang2012,25,726-729.
34. Rhee, J.M., Register, B., Hamasaki, T.&Franklin, B. Plate-only open doorlaminoplasty maintains stable spinal canal expansion with high rates of hinge unionand no plate failures. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2011,36,9-14.
35. Ratliff, J.K.&Cooper, P.R. Cervical laminoplasty: a critical review. J Neurosurg2003,98,230-238.
1. Report on Certain Enteric Fever Inoculation Statistics. Br Med J1904,2,1243-1246.
2. Egger, M.&Smith, G.D. Meta-Analysis. Potentials and promise. BMJ1997,315,1371-1374.
3. Glass, G.V. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res1976,5,3–8.
4. Greenhalgh, T. Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews andmeta-analyses). BMJ1997,315,672-675.
5. DerSimonian, R.&Laird, N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials1986,7,177-188.
6. Mummaneni, P.V., et al. Cervical surgical techniques for the treatment of cervicalspondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine2009,11,130-141.
7. Cunningham, M.R., Hershman, S.&Bendo, J. Systematic review of cohort studiescomparing surgical treatments for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2010,35,537-543.
8. Liu, T., Xu, W., Cheng, T.&Yang, H.L. Anterior versus posterior surgery for multilevelcervical myelopathy, which one is better? A systematic review. Eur Spine J2011,20,224-235.
9. Anderson, P.A., et al. Laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervicaldegenerative myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine2009,11,150-156.
10. Matz, P.G., et al. Cervical laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical degenerativemyelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine2009,11,157-169.
11. Ryken, T.C., et al. Cervical laminectomy for the treatment of cervical degenerativemyelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine2009,11,142-149.
12. Wang, S.J., Jiang, S.D., Jiang, L.S.&Dai, L.Y. Axial pain after posterior cervical spinesurgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J2011,20,185-194.
13. Xu, J., et al. Systematic review of cohort studies comparing surgical treatment formultilevel ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament: anterior vs posterior approach.Orthopedics2011,34, e397-402.
14. Cheng, S.C., Yen, C.H., Kwok, T.K., Wong, W.C.&Mak, K.H. Anterior spinal fusionversus laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a retrospective review. JOrthop Surg (Hong Kong)2009,17,265-268.
15. Edwards, C.C.,2nd, Heller, J.G.&Murakami, H. Corpectomy versus laminoplasty formultilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched-cohort analysis. Spine (PhilaPa1976)2002,27,1168-1175.
16. Herkowitz, H.N. A comparison of anterior cervical fusion, cervical laminectomy, andcervical laminoplasty for the surgical management of multiple level spondyloticradiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1988,13,774-780.
17. Lee, S.H., Ahn, Y.&Lee, J.H. Laser-assisted anterior cervical corpectomy versusposterior laminoplasty for cervical myelopathic patients with multilevel ossification ofthe posterior longitudinal ligament. Photomed Laser Surg2008,26,119-127.
18. Liu, T., Yang, H.L., Xu, Y.Z., Qi, R.F.&Guan, H.Q. ACDF with the PCB cage-platesystem versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J SpinalDisord Tech2011,24,213-220.
19. Morimoto, T., et al. Extensive cervical laminoplasty for patients with long segmentOPLL in the cervical spine: an alternative to the anterior approach. J Clin Neurosci2000,7,217-222.
20. Uchida, K., et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy associated with kyphosis or sagittalsigmoid alignment: outcome after anterior or posterior decompression. J NeurosurgSpine2009,11,521-528.
21. Chen, Y., et al. Surgical strategy for multilevel severe ossification of posteriorlongitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech2011,24,24-30.
22. Hirai, T., et al. Middle-term results of a prospective comparative study of anteriordecompression with fusion and posterior decompression with laminoplasty for thetreatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2011,36,1940-1947.
23. Koakutsu, T., et al. Anterior decompression and fusion versus laminoplasty for cervicalmyelopathy caused by soft disc herniation: a prospective multicenter study. J OrthopSci2010,15,71-78.
24. Sakai, K., et al. Five-year follow-up evaluation of surgical treatment for cervicalmyelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a prospectivecomparative study of anterior decompression and fusion with floating method versuslaminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2012,37,367-376.
25. Sakaura, H., et al. Long-term outcome of laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy due todisc herniation: a comparative study of laminoplasty and anterior spinal fusion. Spine(Phila Pa1976)2005,30,756-759.
26. Shibuya, S., et al. Differences between subtotal corpectomy and laminoplasty forcervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spinal Cord2010,48,214-220.
27. Wada, E., et al. Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervicalspondylotic myelopathy: a long-term follow-up study over10years. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2001,26,1443-1447; discussion1448.
28. Yonenobu, K., Hosono, N., Iwasaki, M., Asano, M.&Ono, K. Laminoplasty versussubtotal corpectomy. A comparative study of results in multisegmental cervicalspondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1992,17,1281-1284.
1. Emery, S.E., Bohlman, H.H., Bolesta, M.J.&Jones, P.K. Anterior cervicaldecompression and arthrodesis for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.Two to seventeen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am1998,80,941-951.
2. Onari, K., et al. Long-term follow-up results of anterior interbody fusion applied forcervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine(Phila Pa1976)2001,26,488-493.
3. Yonenobu, K., Hosono, N., Iwasaki, M., Asano, M.&Ono, K. Laminoplasty versussubtotal corpectomy. A comparative study of results in multisegmental cervicalspondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1992,17,1281-1284.
4. Hanai, K., Fujiyoshi, F.&Kamei, K. Subtotal vertebrectomy and spinal fusion forcervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)11,310-315(1986).
5. Oyama M., H.S., Moriwaki N. A new method of cervical laminoplasty. Centr Jpn JOrthop Traumatic Surg1973,16,3.
6. Hirabayashi, K., et al. Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenoticmyelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1983,8,693-699.
7. Hirabayashi, K.&Satomi, K. Operative procedure and results of expansive open-doorlaminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1988,13,870-876.
8. Itoh, T.&Tsuji, H. Technical improvements and results of laminoplasty forcompressive myelopathy in the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1985,10,729-736.
9. Koyama, T.&Handa, J. Cervical laminoplasty using apatite beads as implants.Experiences in31patients with compressive myelopathy due to developmental canalstenosis. Surg Neurol1985,24,663-667.
10. Lee, T.T., Green, B.A.&Gromelski, E.B. Safety and stability of open-door cervicalexpansive laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord1998,11,12-15.
11. Wang, J.M., Roh, K.J., Kim, D.J.&Kim, D.W. A new method of stabilising theelevated laminae in open-door laminoplasty using an anchor system. J Bone Joint SurgBr1998,80,1005-1008.
12. O'Brien, M.F., Peterson, D., Casey, A.T.&Crockard, H.A. A novel technique forlaminoplasty augmentation of spinal canal area using titanium miniplate stabilization. Acomputerized morphometric analysis. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1996,21,474-483;discussion484.
13. Shaffrey, C.I., Wiggins, G.C., Piccirilli, C.B., Young, J.N.&Lovell, L.R. Modifiedopen-door laminoplasty for treatment of neurological deficits in younger patients withcongenital spinal stenosis: analysis of clinical and radiographic data. J Neurosurg1999,90,170-177.
14. Park, A.E.&Heller, J.G. Cervical laminoplasty: use of a novel titanium plate tomaintain canal expansion--surgical technique. J Spinal Disord Tech2004,17,265-271.
15. Rhee, J.M., Register, B., Hamasaki, T.&Franklin, B. Plate-only open doorlaminoplasty maintains stable spinal canal expansion with high rates of hinge union andno plate failures. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2011,36,9-14.
16. Gu, Y.J., Hu, Y., Ma, W.H., Xu, R.M.&Zhao, H.Y.[Clinical application of centerpiecetitanium plate fixation in open door laminoplasty]. Zhongguo Gu Shang2012,25,726-729.
17.董竹林,董荣华,韩慧,蔡迎&李永全. Centerpiece脊柱内固定系统在颈椎管狭窄症后路手术中的应用.天津医药2011,39,7,647-648.
18.郭龙,刘延雄,康凯&刘志斌. Centerpiece颈后路椎板成形系统开门钢板在脊髓型颈椎病后路单开门手术中的应用. Sxyz (2011).
19.汪雷, et al.单开门颈椎管扩大成形Centerpiece钛板内固定术治疗颈椎管狭窄症的早期临床疗效.中国脊柱脊髓杂志2011,21,8,654-658.
20. Jiang, J.L., Li, X.L., Zhou, X.G., Lin, H.&Dong, J. Plate-only open-door laminoplastywith fusion for treatment of multilevel degenerative cervical disease. J Clin Neurosci2012,19,804-809.
21.张欲燃,张玉民,王献印,孙广智&韩文朝.锚定法单开门椎管扩大椎板成形术治疗脊髓型颈椎病合并发育性颈椎管狭窄.中国正骨2011,23,10,53-54.
22.魏新荣,移平,谭明生&杨峰.“锚定法”单开门椎管成形术治疗脊髓型颈椎病52例分析.中国误诊学杂志2010,10,7,1674-1675.
23. Kurokawa, T. Enlargement of the spinal canal by the sagittal splitting of spinousprocesses. Bessatsu Seikeigeka1982,2,249-252.
24. Yoshida, M., Otani, K., Shibasaki, K.&Ueda, S. Expansive laminoplasty withreattachment of spinous process and extensor musculature for cervical myelopathy.Spine (Phila Pa1976)1992,17,491-497.
25. Hase, H., et al. Bilateral open laminoplasty using ceramic laminas for cervicalmyelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1991,16,1269-1276.
26. Nakano, K., Harata, S., Suetsuna, F., Araki, T.&Itoh, J. Spinous process-splittinglaminoplasty using hydroxyapatite spinous process spacer. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1992,17, S41-43.
27. Tomita, K., Kawahara, N., Toribatake, Y.&Heller, J.G. Expansive midline T-sawlaminoplasty (modified spinous process-splitting) for the management of cervicalmyelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1998,23,32-37.
28. Edwards, C.C.,2nd, Heller, J.G.&Silcox, D.H.,3rd. T-Saw laminoplasty for themanagement of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: clinical and radiographic outcome.Spine (Phila Pa1976)2000,25,1788-1794.
29.李祖国&胡跃.双开门颈椎管成形术植骨块改良固定法的临床应用.中国骨与关节损伤杂志2011,26,7,607-608.
30.李钦亮,刘艺,陈鸣,陈金传&朱赤.颈椎“双开门”椎管扩大成形同种异体骨植骨治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效分析.颈腰痛杂志2011,32,4,276-277.
31. Nurick, S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervicalspondylosis. Brain1972,95,87-100.
32. Nurick, S. The natural history and the results of surgical treatment of the spinal corddisorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain1972,95,101-108.
33. Yue, W.M., Tan, S.B., Tan, M.H., Koh, D.C.&Tan, C.T. The Torg--Pavlov ratio incervical spondylotic myelopathy: a comparative study between patients with cervicalspondylotic myelopathy and a nonspondylotic, nonmyelopathic population. Spine(Phila Pa1976)2001,26,1760-1764.
34. Chiles, B.W.,3rd, Leonard, M.A., Choudhri, H.F.&Cooper, P.R. Cervical spondyloticmyelopathy: patterns of neurological deficit and recovery after anterior cervicaldecompression. Neurosurgery1999,44,762-769; discussion769-770.
35. Prolo, D.J., Oklund, S.A.&Butcher, M. Toward uniformity in evaluating results oflumbar spine operations. A paradigm applied to posterior lumbar interbody fusions.Spine (Phila Pa1976)1986,11,601-606.
36. Vitzthum, H.E.&Dalitz, K. Analysis of five specific scores for cervical spondylogenicmyelopathy. Eur Spine J2007,16,2096-2103.
37. Satomi, K., Nishu, Y., Kohno, T.&Hirabayashi, K. Long-term follow-up studies ofopen-door expansive laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1994,19,507-510.
38. Iwasaki, M., Kawaguchi, Y., Kimura, T.&Yonenobu, K. Long-term results ofexpansive laminoplasty for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of thecervical spine: more than10years follow up. J Neurosurg2002,96,180-189.
39. Chiba, K., et al. Long-term results of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervicalmyelopathy--average14-year follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2006,31,2998-3005.
40. Yu, H.L., et al. Laminoplasty using Twinfix suture anchors to maintain cervical canalexpansion. Eur Spine J2010,19,1795-1798.
41. Kimura, A., Seichi, A., Inoue, H.&Hoshino, Y. Long-term results of double-doorlaminoplasty using hydroxyapatite spacers in patients with compressive cervicalmyelopathy. Eur Spine J2011,20,1560-1566.
42.刘忠军,党.蔡.应用单开门椎板成形术治疗颈椎后纵韧带骨化症.中华骨科杂志1999,19,6,336-337.
43.姜晓幸,张.陈.双开门颈椎椎板成形术(Kurokawa法)治疗颈椎管狭窄症的随访研究.中华骨科杂志2001,21,5,283-285.
44.王伟,任龙喜&高成杰.保留颈后方韧带复合体重建伸肌附着点单开门椎板成形术治疗颈椎疾患的临床观察.中国脊柱脊髓杂志2008,18,4,253-255.
45. Machino, M., et al. Can elderly patients recover adequately after laminoplasty?: acomparative study of520patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (PhilaPa1976)2012,37,667-671.
46. Kawaguchi, Y., Matsui, H., Ishihara, H., Gejo, R.&Yasuda, T. Surgical outcome ofcervical expansive laminoplasty in patients with diabetes mellitus. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2000,25,551-555.
47. Aita, I., Hayashi, K., Wadano, Y.&Yabuki, T. Posterior movement and enlargement ofthe spinal cord after cervical laminoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br1998,80,33-37.
48. Tanaka, S., Tashiro, T., Gomi, A.&Ujiie, H. Cervical unilateral open-doorlaminoplasty with titanium miniplates through newly designed hydroxyapatite spacers.Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo)2011,51,673-677.
49. Hirabayashi, S., et al. Comparison of enlargement of the spinal canal after cervicallaminoplasty: open-door type and double-door type. Eur Spine J2010,19,1690-1694.
50. Shiozaki, T., et al. Spinal cord shift on magnetic resonance imaging at24hours aftercervical laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2009,34,274-279.
51.孙天威, et al.颈椎单开门椎管扩大椎板成形术后铰链侧c_5神经根麻痹与不同椎板开门角度的临床分析.中国修复重建杂志2011,25,11,1285-1287.
52.刘洪, H.I.智慧明.伊藤法“单开门”颈椎椎管扩大椎板成形术及其临床应用.中国脊柱脊髓杂志2005,15,9,517-518.
53. Hosono, N., Yonenobu, K.&Ono, K. Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty. Anoticeable complication. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1996,21,1969-1973.
54. Kawaguchi, Y., Matsui, H., Ishihara, H., Gejo, R.&Yoshino, O. Axial symptoms afteren bloc cervical laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord1999,12,392-395.
55. Edwards, C.C.,2nd, Heller, J.G.&Murakami, H. Corpectomy versus laminoplasty formultilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched-cohort analysis. Spine (PhilaPa1976)2002,27,1168-1175.
56. Wada, E., et al. Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervicalspondylotic myelopathy: a long-term follow-up study over10years. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2001,26,1443-1447; discussion1448.
57. Ohnari, H., et al. Investigation of axial symptoms after cervical laminoplasty, usingquestionnaire survey. Spine J2006,6,221-227.
58. Zhang, J., Tsuzuki, N., Hirabayashi, S., Saiki, K.&Fujita, K. Surgical anatomy of thenerves and muscles in the posterior cervical spine: a guide for avoiding inadvertentnerve injuries during the posterior approach. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2003,28,1379-1384.
59. Fujimura, Y.&Nishi, Y. Atrophy of the nuchal muscle and change in cervical curvatureafter expansive open-door laminoplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg1996,115,203-205.
60. Takeuchi, K., et al. Axial symptoms after cervical laminoplasty with C3laminectomycompared with conventional C3-C7laminoplasty: a modified laminoplasty preservingthe semispinalis cervicis inserted into axis. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2005,30,2544-2549.
61. Kato, M., et al. Effect of preserving paraspinal muscles on postoperative axial pain inthe selective cervical laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2008,33, E455-459.
62. Hosono, N., Sakaura, H., Mukai, Y.&Yoshikawa, H. The source of axial pain aftercervical laminoplasty-C7is more crucial than deep extensor muscles. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2007,32,2985-2988.
63.李雷, et al.重建后方韧带复合体的颈椎单开门桥式植骨椎板成形术对术后轴性症状和颈椎曲度的影响.中国修复重建外科杂志2007,21,5,457-459.
64. Machino, M., et al. Cervical alignment and range of motion after laminoplasty:radiographical data from more than500cases with cervical spondylotic myelopathyand a review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2012,37, E1243-1250.
65. Hyun, S.J., Rhim, S.C., Roh, S.W., Kang, S.H.&Riew, K.D. The time course of rangeof motion loss after cervical laminoplasty: a prospective study with minimum two-yearfollow-up. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2009,34,1134-1139.
66.孙宇,潘.陈.朱.刘.蔡.单开门颈椎管扩大椎板成形术对颈椎运动的影响.中国脊柱脊髓杂志2003,13,4,212-214.
67. Takeuchi, K., et al. Cervical range of motion and alignment after laminoplastypreserving or reattaching the semispinalis cervicis inserted into axis. J Spinal DisordTech2007,20,571-576.
68.丁立祥,陈迎春,姚琦,张亘瑷&董福慧. C_3椎板切除并保留c_7棘突的颈椎管扩大双开门成形术.中国桥形外科杂志2009,17,17,1303-1306.
69. Chiba, K., et al. Segmental motor paralysis after expansive open-door laminoplasty.Spine (Phila Pa1976)2002,27,2108-2115.
70.Sasai, K., et al. Preventing C5palsy after laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2003,28,1972-1977.
71. Sakaura, H., Hosono, N., Mukai, Y., Ishii, T.&Yoshikawa, H. C5palsy afterdecompression surgery for cervical myelopathy: review of the literature. Spine (PhilaPa1976)2003,28,2447-2451.
72. Nassr, A., et al. The incidence of C5palsy after multilevel cervical decompressionprocedures: a review of750consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2012,37,174-178.
73. Sun, T., et al.[Clinical analysis of C5nerve root palsy in hinge side and differentangles in lamina open-door after expansion of open-door cervical laminoplasty].Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi2011,25,1285-1289.
74. Katsumi, K., Yamazaki, A., Watanabe, K., Ohashi, M.&Shoji, H. Analysis of C5PalsyAfter Cervical Open-door Laminoplasty: Relationship Between C5Palsy andForaminal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech2011,11,1536-1540.
75. Minoda, Y., et al. Palsy of the C5nerve root after midsagittal-splitting laminoplasty ofthe cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2003,28,1123-1127.
76. Tsuzuki, N., Abe, R., Saiki, K.&Okai, K. Paralysis of the arm after posteriordecompression of the cervical spinal cord. II. Analyses of clinical findings. Eur Spine J1993,2,197-202.
77. Uematsu, Y., Tokuhashi, Y.&Matsuzaki, H. Radiculopathy after laminoplasty of thecervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1998,23,2057-2062.
78. Yonenobu, K., Hosono, N., Iwasaki, M., Asano, M.&Ono, K. Neurologiccomplications of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1991,16,1277-1282.
79. Epstein, J.A. Extradural tethering effects as one mechanism of radiculopathycomplicating posterior decompression of the cervical spinal cord. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1996,21,1839-1840.
80. Tsuzuki, N., Abe, R., Saiki, K.&Zhongshi, L. Extradural tethering effect as onemechanism of radiculopathy complicating posterior decompression of the cervicalspinal cord. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1996,21,203-211.
81. Xia, Y., Shen, Q., Li, H.&Xu, T. Influence of hinge position on the effectiveness ofexpansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal DisordTech2011,24,514-520.
82. Zhang, H., Lu, S., Sun, T.&Yadav, S.K. Effect of Lamina open Angles in ExpansionOpen-door Laminoplasty on the Clinical Results in Treating Cervical SpondyloticMyelopathy. J Spinal Disord Tech2012,7,1539-1540.
2. Fehlings, M.G.&Skaf, G. A review of the pathophysiology of cervical spondyloticmyelopathy with insights for potential novel mechanisms drawn from traumaticspinal cord injury. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1998,23,2730-2737.
3. Matz, P.G. Does nonoperative management play a role in the treatment of cervicalspondylotic myelopathy? Spine J2006,6,175S-181S.
4. Hirabayashi, K., et al. Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinalstenotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1983,8,693-699.
5. Park, A.E.&Heller, J.G. Cervical laminoplasty: use of a novel titanium plate tomaintain canal expansion--surgical technique. J Spinal Disord Tech2004,17,265-271.
6.董竹林,董荣华,韩慧,蔡迎&李永全. Centerpiece脊柱内固定系统在颈椎管狭窄症后路手术中的应用.天津医药2011,39,7,646-648.
7.汪雷, et al.单开门颈椎管扩大成形Centerpiece钛板内固定术治疗颈椎管狭窄症的早期临床疗效.中国脊柱脊髓杂志2011,21,8,654-658.
8. Gu, Y.J., Hu, Y., Ma, W.H., Xu, R.M.&Zhao, H.Y.[Clinical application ofcenterpiece titanium plate fixation in open door laminoplasty]. Zhongguo Gu Shang2012,25,726-729.
1. Montgomery, D.M.&Brower, R.S. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clinicalsyndrome and natural history. Orthop Clin North Am1992,23,487-493.
2. Moore, A.P.&Blumhardt, L.D. A prospective survey of the causes of non-traumaticspastic paraparesis and tetraparesis in585patients. Spinal Cord1997,35,361-367.
3. Kaminsky, S.B., Clark, C.R.&Traynelis, V.C. Operative treatment of cervicalspondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy. A comparison of laminectomy andlaminoplasty at five year average follow-up. Iowa Orthop J2004,24,95-105.
4. Nakano, N., Nakano, T.&Nakano, K. Comparison of the results of laminectomy andopen-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myeloradiculopathy and ossification ofthe posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1988,13,792-794.
5. Cunningham, M.R., Hershman, S.&Bendo, J. Systematic review of cohort studiescomparing surgical treatments for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2010,35,537-543.
6. Hirai, T., et al. Middle-term results of a prospective comparative study of anteriordecompression with fusion and posterior decompression with laminoplasty for thetreatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2011,36,1940-1947.
7. Koakutsu, T., et al. Anterior decompression and fusion versus laminoplasty for cervicalmyelopathy caused by soft disc herniation: a prospective multicenter study. J OrthopSci2010,15,71-78.
8. Liu, T., Yang, H.L., Xu, Y.Z., Qi, R.F.&Guan, H.Q. ACDF with the PCB cage-platesystem versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J SpinalDisord Tech2011,24,213-220.
9. Sakai, K., et al. Five-year follow-up evaluation of surgical treatment for cervicalmyelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a prospectivecomparative study of anterior decompression and fusion with floating method versuslaminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2012,37,367-376.
10. Shibuya, S., et al. Differences between subtotal corpectomy and laminoplasty forcervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spinal Cord2010,48,214-220.
11. Park, A.E.&Heller, J.G. Cervical laminoplasty: use of a novel titanium plate tomaintain canal expansion--surgical technique. J Spinal Disord Tech2004,17,265-271.
12. Wang, J.M., Roh, K.J., Kim, D.J.&Kim, D.W. A new method of stabilising theelevated laminae in open-door laminoplasty using an anchor system. J Bone Joint SurgBr1998,80,1005-1008.
13.孙宇,潘.陈.朱.刘.蔡.单开门颈椎管扩大椎板成形术对颈椎运动的影响.中国脊柱脊髓杂志2003,13(4),212-215.
14.张学利,王善金,王云力&刘献强.锚定法单开门椎管成形术对术后轴性症状和颈椎曲度影响的病例对照研究.中国骨伤2008,21(10),759-761.
15.张绍文,米仲祥,李盛华,张德宏&邓强.锚定法改良单开门颈椎管成形术配合中药热敷防治术后轴性症状的疗效观察.中国骨伤2008,21(12),934-935.
16.魏新荣,移平,谭明生&杨峰.“锚定法”单开门椎管成形术治疗脊髓型颈椎病52例分析.中国误诊学杂志2010,10(7),1674-1675.
17.万军,胡炜,张学利&田融.锚定法单开门颈椎管扩大成形术治疗氟骨症颈椎管狭窄症.中国骨与关节损伤杂志2010,25(2),103-104.
18.孙晓&盛路新.“锚定法”在单开门椎管扩大成型术中的应用.中国现代医药杂志2007,9(7),109.
19. Yu, H.L., et al. Laminoplasty using Twinfix suture anchors to maintain cervical canalexpansion. Eur Spine J19,1795-1798(2010).
20. Cheng, S.C., Yen, C.H., Kwok, T.K., Wong, W.C.&Mak, K.H. Anterior spinal fusionversus laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a retrospective review. JOrthop Surg (Hong Kong)17,265-268(2009).
21. Mummaneni, P.V., et al. Cervical surgical techniques for the treatment of cervicalspondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine11,130-141(2009).
22. Uchida, K., et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy associated with kyphosis or sagittalsigmoid alignment: outcome after anterior or posterior decompression. J NeurosurgSpine11,521-528(2009).
23.曾云, et al.微型钢板与锚定法在单开门颈椎管扩大成形术中应用的对比研究.中国修复重建外科杂志2011,25(8),946-950.
24. Yonenobu, K., Hosono, N., Iwasaki, M., Asano, M.&Ono, K. Neurologiccomplications of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)16,1277-1282(1991).
25. Xia, Y., Shen, Q., Li, H.&Xu, T. Influence of hinge position on the effectiveness ofexpansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal DisordTech24,514-520(2011).
26. Hosono, N., Yonenobu, K.&Ono, K. Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty. Anoticeable complication. Spine (Phila Pa1976)21,1969-1973(1996).
27. Kawaguchi, Y., Matsui, H., Ishihara, H., Gejo, R.&Yoshino, O. Axial symptoms afteren bloc cervical laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord12,392-395(1999).
28. Wang, S.J., Jiang, S.D., Jiang, L.S.&Dai, L.Y. Axial pain after posterior cervical spinesurgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J20,185-194(2011).
29. Sakaura, H., et al. Preservation of muscles attached to the C2and C7spinous processesrather than subaxial deep extensors reduces adverse effects after cervical laminoplasty.Spine (Phila Pa1976)35, E782-786(2010).
30. Takeuchi, K., et al. Limitations of activities of daily living accompanying reduced neckmobility after cervical laminoplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg127,475-480(2007).
31. Takeuchi, K., et al. Limitation of activities of daily living accompanying reduced neckmobility after laminoplasty preserving or reattaching the semispinalis cervicis into axis.Eur Spine J17,415-420(2008).
32.汪雷, et al.单开门颈椎管扩大成形Centerpiece钛板内固定术治疗颈椎管狭窄症的早期临床疗效.中国脊椎脊髓杂志2011,21(8),956-958.
33. Sakaura, H., Hosono, N., Mukai, Y., Ishii, T.&Yoshikawa, H. C5palsy afterdecompression surgery for cervical myelopathy: review of the literature. Spine (PhilaPa1976)28,2447-2451(2003).
34. Sun, T., et al.[Clinical analysis of C5nerve root palsy in hinge side and differentangles in lamina open-door after expansion of open-door cervical laminoplasty].Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi25,1285-1289(2011).
35. Satomi, K., Nishu, Y., Kohno, T.&Hirabayashi, K. Long-term follow-up studies of open-doorexpansive laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)19,507-510(1994).
1. Chen, Y., et al. Surgical strategy for multilevel severe ossification of posteriorlongitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech2011,24,24-30.
2. Kawano, H., et al. Surgical treatment for ossification of the posterior longitudinalligament of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord1995,8,145-150.
3. Tani, T., et al. Relative safety of anterior microsurgical decompression versuslaminoplasty for cervical myelopathy with a massive ossified posterior longitudinalligament. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2002,27,2491-2498.
4. Tomita, K., Nomura, S., Umeda, S.&Baba, H. Cervical laminoplasty to enlarge thespinal canal in multilevel ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament withmyelopathy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg1988,107,148-153.
5. Morimoto, T., et al. Extensive cervical laminoplasty for patients with long segmentOPLL in the cervical spine: an alternative to the anterior approach. J Clin Neurosci2000,7,217-222.
6. Jain, S.K., et al. Multisegmental cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinalligament: anterior vs posterior approach. Neurol India2005,53,283-285;discussion286.
7. Sakai, K., et al. Five-year follow-up evaluation of surgical treatment for cervicalmyelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: aprospective comparative study of anterior decompression and fusion with floatingmethod versus laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2012,37,367-376.
8. Suda, K., et al. Local kyphosis reduces surgical outcomes of expansive open-doorlaminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2003,28,1258-1262.
9. Iwasaki, M., Kawaguchi, Y., Kimura, T.&Yonenobu, K. Long-term results ofexpansive laminoplasty for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of thecervical spine: more than10years follow up. J Neurosurg2002,96,180-189.
10. Kimura, I., Shingu, H.&Nasu, Y. Long-term follow-up of cervical spondyloticmyelopathy treated by canal-expansive laminoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br1995,77,956-961.
11. Kawaguchi, Y., et al. Progression of ossification of the posterior longitudinalligament following en bloc cervical laminoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2001,83-A,1798-1802.
12. Matsunaga, S., Sakou, T., Taketomi, E.&Komiya, S. Clinical course of patientswith ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a minimum10-year cohortstudy. J Neurosurg2004,100,245-248.
13. Ogawa, Y., et al. Long-term results of expansive open-door laminoplasty forossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine. J NeurosurgSpine2004,1,168-174.
14. Liu, T., Yang, H.L., Xu, Y.Z., Qi, R.F.&Guan, H.Q. ACDF with the PCBcage-plate system versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondyloticmyelopathy. J Spinal Disord Tech2011,24,213-220.
15. Hirai, T., et al. Middle-term results of a prospective comparative study of anteriordecompression with fusion and posterior decompression with laminoplasty for thetreatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2011,36,1940-1947.
16. Koakutsu, T., et al. Anterior decompression and fusion versus laminoplasty forcervical myelopathy caused by soft disc herniation: a prospective multicenter study.J Orthop Sci2010,15,71-78.
17. Sakaura, H., et al. Long-term outcome of laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy dueto disc herniation: a comparative study of laminoplasty and anterior spinal fusion.Spine (Phila Pa1976)2005,30,756-759.
18. Emery, S.E., Bohlman, H.H., Bolesta, M.J.&Jones, P.K. Anterior cervicaldecompression and arthrodesis for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.Two to seventeen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am1998,80,941-951.
19. Riew, K.D., Sethi, N.S., Devney, J., Goette, K.&Choi, K. Complications ofbuttress plate stabilization of cervical corpectomy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1999,24,2404-2410.
20. Wei-bing, X., et al. Reconstructive techniques study after anterior decompression ofmultilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord Tech2009,22,511-515.
21. Smith-Hammond, C.A., et al. Prospective analysis of incidence and risk factors ofdysphagia in spine surgery patients: comparison of anterior cervical, posteriorcervical, and lumbar procedures. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2004,29,1441-1446.
22. McAfee, P.C., et al. Lower incidence of dysphagia with cervical arthroplastycompared with ACDF in a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Spinal DisordTech2010,23,1-8.
23. Riley, L.H.,3rd, Skolasky, R.L., Albert, T.J., Vaccaro, A.R.&Heller, J.G.Dysphagia after anterior cervical decompression and fusion: prevalence and riskfactors from a longitudinal cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2005,30,2564-2569.
24. Bazaz, R., Lee, M.J.&Yoo, J.U. Incidence of dysphagia after anterior cervicalspine surgery: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2002,27,2453-2458.
25. Daniels, S.K., Mahoney, M.C.&Lyons, G.D. Persistent dysphagia and dysphoniafollowing cervical spine surgery. Ear Nose Throat J1998,77,470,473-475.
26. Hee, H.T., Majd, M.E., Holt, R.T., Whitecloud, T.S.,3rd&Pienkowski, D.Complications of multilevel cervical corpectomies and reconstruction with titaniumcages and anterior plating. J Spinal Disord Tech2003,16,1-8; discussion8-9.
27. Fountas, K.N., Kapsalaki, E.Z., Machinis, T.&Robinson, J.S. Extrusion of a screwinto the gastrointestinal tract after anterior cervical spine plating. J Spinal DisordTech2006,19,199-203.
28. Joseph, V., Kumar, G.S.&Rajshekhar, V. Cerebrospinal fluid leak during cervicalcorpectomy for ossified posterior longitudinal ligament: incidence, management,and outcome. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2009,34,491-494.
29. Hannallah, D., Lee, J., Khan, M., Donaldson, W.F.&Kang, J.D. Cerebrospinal fluidleaks following cervical spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am2008,90,1101-1105.
30. Lei, T., et al. Cerebrospinal fluid leakage during anterior approach cervical spinesurgery for severe ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: prevention andtreatment. Orthop Surg2012,4,247-252.
31. Fernyhough, J.C., White, J.I.&LaRocca, H. Fusion rates in multilevel cervicalspondylosis comparing allograft fibula with autograft fibula in126patients. Spine(Phila Pa1976)1991,16, S561-564.
32. Park, A.E.&Heller, J.G. Cervical laminoplasty: use of a novel titanium plate tomaintain canal expansion--surgical technique. J Spinal Disord Tech2004,17,265-271.
33. Gu, Y.J., Hu, Y., Ma, W.H., Xu, R.M.&Zhao, H.Y.[Clinical application ofcenterpiece titanium plate fixation in open door laminoplasty]. Zhongguo Gu Shang2012,25,726-729.
34. Rhee, J.M., Register, B., Hamasaki, T.&Franklin, B. Plate-only open doorlaminoplasty maintains stable spinal canal expansion with high rates of hinge unionand no plate failures. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2011,36,9-14.
35. Ratliff, J.K.&Cooper, P.R. Cervical laminoplasty: a critical review. J Neurosurg2003,98,230-238.
1. Report on Certain Enteric Fever Inoculation Statistics. Br Med J1904,2,1243-1246.
2. Egger, M.&Smith, G.D. Meta-Analysis. Potentials and promise. BMJ1997,315,1371-1374.
3. Glass, G.V. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res1976,5,3–8.
4. Greenhalgh, T. Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews andmeta-analyses). BMJ1997,315,672-675.
5. DerSimonian, R.&Laird, N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials1986,7,177-188.
6. Mummaneni, P.V., et al. Cervical surgical techniques for the treatment of cervicalspondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine2009,11,130-141.
7. Cunningham, M.R., Hershman, S.&Bendo, J. Systematic review of cohort studiescomparing surgical treatments for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2010,35,537-543.
8. Liu, T., Xu, W., Cheng, T.&Yang, H.L. Anterior versus posterior surgery for multilevelcervical myelopathy, which one is better? A systematic review. Eur Spine J2011,20,224-235.
9. Anderson, P.A., et al. Laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervicaldegenerative myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine2009,11,150-156.
10. Matz, P.G., et al. Cervical laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical degenerativemyelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine2009,11,157-169.
11. Ryken, T.C., et al. Cervical laminectomy for the treatment of cervical degenerativemyelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine2009,11,142-149.
12. Wang, S.J., Jiang, S.D., Jiang, L.S.&Dai, L.Y. Axial pain after posterior cervical spinesurgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J2011,20,185-194.
13. Xu, J., et al. Systematic review of cohort studies comparing surgical treatment formultilevel ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament: anterior vs posterior approach.Orthopedics2011,34, e397-402.
14. Cheng, S.C., Yen, C.H., Kwok, T.K., Wong, W.C.&Mak, K.H. Anterior spinal fusionversus laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a retrospective review. JOrthop Surg (Hong Kong)2009,17,265-268.
15. Edwards, C.C.,2nd, Heller, J.G.&Murakami, H. Corpectomy versus laminoplasty formultilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched-cohort analysis. Spine (PhilaPa1976)2002,27,1168-1175.
16. Herkowitz, H.N. A comparison of anterior cervical fusion, cervical laminectomy, andcervical laminoplasty for the surgical management of multiple level spondyloticradiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1988,13,774-780.
17. Lee, S.H., Ahn, Y.&Lee, J.H. Laser-assisted anterior cervical corpectomy versusposterior laminoplasty for cervical myelopathic patients with multilevel ossification ofthe posterior longitudinal ligament. Photomed Laser Surg2008,26,119-127.
18. Liu, T., Yang, H.L., Xu, Y.Z., Qi, R.F.&Guan, H.Q. ACDF with the PCB cage-platesystem versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J SpinalDisord Tech2011,24,213-220.
19. Morimoto, T., et al. Extensive cervical laminoplasty for patients with long segmentOPLL in the cervical spine: an alternative to the anterior approach. J Clin Neurosci2000,7,217-222.
20. Uchida, K., et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy associated with kyphosis or sagittalsigmoid alignment: outcome after anterior or posterior decompression. J NeurosurgSpine2009,11,521-528.
21. Chen, Y., et al. Surgical strategy for multilevel severe ossification of posteriorlongitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech2011,24,24-30.
22. Hirai, T., et al. Middle-term results of a prospective comparative study of anteriordecompression with fusion and posterior decompression with laminoplasty for thetreatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2011,36,1940-1947.
23. Koakutsu, T., et al. Anterior decompression and fusion versus laminoplasty for cervicalmyelopathy caused by soft disc herniation: a prospective multicenter study. J OrthopSci2010,15,71-78.
24. Sakai, K., et al. Five-year follow-up evaluation of surgical treatment for cervicalmyelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a prospectivecomparative study of anterior decompression and fusion with floating method versuslaminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2012,37,367-376.
25. Sakaura, H., et al. Long-term outcome of laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy due todisc herniation: a comparative study of laminoplasty and anterior spinal fusion. Spine(Phila Pa1976)2005,30,756-759.
26. Shibuya, S., et al. Differences between subtotal corpectomy and laminoplasty forcervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spinal Cord2010,48,214-220.
27. Wada, E., et al. Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervicalspondylotic myelopathy: a long-term follow-up study over10years. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2001,26,1443-1447; discussion1448.
28. Yonenobu, K., Hosono, N., Iwasaki, M., Asano, M.&Ono, K. Laminoplasty versussubtotal corpectomy. A comparative study of results in multisegmental cervicalspondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1992,17,1281-1284.
1. Emery, S.E., Bohlman, H.H., Bolesta, M.J.&Jones, P.K. Anterior cervicaldecompression and arthrodesis for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.Two to seventeen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am1998,80,941-951.
2. Onari, K., et al. Long-term follow-up results of anterior interbody fusion applied forcervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine(Phila Pa1976)2001,26,488-493.
3. Yonenobu, K., Hosono, N., Iwasaki, M., Asano, M.&Ono, K. Laminoplasty versussubtotal corpectomy. A comparative study of results in multisegmental cervicalspondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1992,17,1281-1284.
4. Hanai, K., Fujiyoshi, F.&Kamei, K. Subtotal vertebrectomy and spinal fusion forcervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)11,310-315(1986).
5. Oyama M., H.S., Moriwaki N. A new method of cervical laminoplasty. Centr Jpn JOrthop Traumatic Surg1973,16,3.
6. Hirabayashi, K., et al. Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenoticmyelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1983,8,693-699.
7. Hirabayashi, K.&Satomi, K. Operative procedure and results of expansive open-doorlaminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1988,13,870-876.
8. Itoh, T.&Tsuji, H. Technical improvements and results of laminoplasty forcompressive myelopathy in the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1985,10,729-736.
9. Koyama, T.&Handa, J. Cervical laminoplasty using apatite beads as implants.Experiences in31patients with compressive myelopathy due to developmental canalstenosis. Surg Neurol1985,24,663-667.
10. Lee, T.T., Green, B.A.&Gromelski, E.B. Safety and stability of open-door cervicalexpansive laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord1998,11,12-15.
11. Wang, J.M., Roh, K.J., Kim, D.J.&Kim, D.W. A new method of stabilising theelevated laminae in open-door laminoplasty using an anchor system. J Bone Joint SurgBr1998,80,1005-1008.
12. O'Brien, M.F., Peterson, D., Casey, A.T.&Crockard, H.A. A novel technique forlaminoplasty augmentation of spinal canal area using titanium miniplate stabilization. Acomputerized morphometric analysis. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1996,21,474-483;discussion484.
13. Shaffrey, C.I., Wiggins, G.C., Piccirilli, C.B., Young, J.N.&Lovell, L.R. Modifiedopen-door laminoplasty for treatment of neurological deficits in younger patients withcongenital spinal stenosis: analysis of clinical and radiographic data. J Neurosurg1999,90,170-177.
14. Park, A.E.&Heller, J.G. Cervical laminoplasty: use of a novel titanium plate tomaintain canal expansion--surgical technique. J Spinal Disord Tech2004,17,265-271.
15. Rhee, J.M., Register, B., Hamasaki, T.&Franklin, B. Plate-only open doorlaminoplasty maintains stable spinal canal expansion with high rates of hinge union andno plate failures. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2011,36,9-14.
16. Gu, Y.J., Hu, Y., Ma, W.H., Xu, R.M.&Zhao, H.Y.[Clinical application of centerpiecetitanium plate fixation in open door laminoplasty]. Zhongguo Gu Shang2012,25,726-729.
17.董竹林,董荣华,韩慧,蔡迎&李永全. Centerpiece脊柱内固定系统在颈椎管狭窄症后路手术中的应用.天津医药2011,39,7,647-648.
18.郭龙,刘延雄,康凯&刘志斌. Centerpiece颈后路椎板成形系统开门钢板在脊髓型颈椎病后路单开门手术中的应用. Sxyz (2011).
19.汪雷, et al.单开门颈椎管扩大成形Centerpiece钛板内固定术治疗颈椎管狭窄症的早期临床疗效.中国脊柱脊髓杂志2011,21,8,654-658.
20. Jiang, J.L., Li, X.L., Zhou, X.G., Lin, H.&Dong, J. Plate-only open-door laminoplastywith fusion for treatment of multilevel degenerative cervical disease. J Clin Neurosci2012,19,804-809.
21.张欲燃,张玉民,王献印,孙广智&韩文朝.锚定法单开门椎管扩大椎板成形术治疗脊髓型颈椎病合并发育性颈椎管狭窄.中国正骨2011,23,10,53-54.
22.魏新荣,移平,谭明生&杨峰.“锚定法”单开门椎管成形术治疗脊髓型颈椎病52例分析.中国误诊学杂志2010,10,7,1674-1675.
23. Kurokawa, T. Enlargement of the spinal canal by the sagittal splitting of spinousprocesses. Bessatsu Seikeigeka1982,2,249-252.
24. Yoshida, M., Otani, K., Shibasaki, K.&Ueda, S. Expansive laminoplasty withreattachment of spinous process and extensor musculature for cervical myelopathy.Spine (Phila Pa1976)1992,17,491-497.
25. Hase, H., et al. Bilateral open laminoplasty using ceramic laminas for cervicalmyelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1991,16,1269-1276.
26. Nakano, K., Harata, S., Suetsuna, F., Araki, T.&Itoh, J. Spinous process-splittinglaminoplasty using hydroxyapatite spinous process spacer. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1992,17, S41-43.
27. Tomita, K., Kawahara, N., Toribatake, Y.&Heller, J.G. Expansive midline T-sawlaminoplasty (modified spinous process-splitting) for the management of cervicalmyelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1998,23,32-37.
28. Edwards, C.C.,2nd, Heller, J.G.&Silcox, D.H.,3rd. T-Saw laminoplasty for themanagement of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: clinical and radiographic outcome.Spine (Phila Pa1976)2000,25,1788-1794.
29.李祖国&胡跃.双开门颈椎管成形术植骨块改良固定法的临床应用.中国骨与关节损伤杂志2011,26,7,607-608.
30.李钦亮,刘艺,陈鸣,陈金传&朱赤.颈椎“双开门”椎管扩大成形同种异体骨植骨治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效分析.颈腰痛杂志2011,32,4,276-277.
31. Nurick, S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervicalspondylosis. Brain1972,95,87-100.
32. Nurick, S. The natural history and the results of surgical treatment of the spinal corddisorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain1972,95,101-108.
33. Yue, W.M., Tan, S.B., Tan, M.H., Koh, D.C.&Tan, C.T. The Torg--Pavlov ratio incervical spondylotic myelopathy: a comparative study between patients with cervicalspondylotic myelopathy and a nonspondylotic, nonmyelopathic population. Spine(Phila Pa1976)2001,26,1760-1764.
34. Chiles, B.W.,3rd, Leonard, M.A., Choudhri, H.F.&Cooper, P.R. Cervical spondyloticmyelopathy: patterns of neurological deficit and recovery after anterior cervicaldecompression. Neurosurgery1999,44,762-769; discussion769-770.
35. Prolo, D.J., Oklund, S.A.&Butcher, M. Toward uniformity in evaluating results oflumbar spine operations. A paradigm applied to posterior lumbar interbody fusions.Spine (Phila Pa1976)1986,11,601-606.
36. Vitzthum, H.E.&Dalitz, K. Analysis of five specific scores for cervical spondylogenicmyelopathy. Eur Spine J2007,16,2096-2103.
37. Satomi, K., Nishu, Y., Kohno, T.&Hirabayashi, K. Long-term follow-up studies ofopen-door expansive laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1994,19,507-510.
38. Iwasaki, M., Kawaguchi, Y., Kimura, T.&Yonenobu, K. Long-term results ofexpansive laminoplasty for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of thecervical spine: more than10years follow up. J Neurosurg2002,96,180-189.
39. Chiba, K., et al. Long-term results of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervicalmyelopathy--average14-year follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2006,31,2998-3005.
40. Yu, H.L., et al. Laminoplasty using Twinfix suture anchors to maintain cervical canalexpansion. Eur Spine J2010,19,1795-1798.
41. Kimura, A., Seichi, A., Inoue, H.&Hoshino, Y. Long-term results of double-doorlaminoplasty using hydroxyapatite spacers in patients with compressive cervicalmyelopathy. Eur Spine J2011,20,1560-1566.
42.刘忠军,党.蔡.应用单开门椎板成形术治疗颈椎后纵韧带骨化症.中华骨科杂志1999,19,6,336-337.
43.姜晓幸,张.陈.双开门颈椎椎板成形术(Kurokawa法)治疗颈椎管狭窄症的随访研究.中华骨科杂志2001,21,5,283-285.
44.王伟,任龙喜&高成杰.保留颈后方韧带复合体重建伸肌附着点单开门椎板成形术治疗颈椎疾患的临床观察.中国脊柱脊髓杂志2008,18,4,253-255.
45. Machino, M., et al. Can elderly patients recover adequately after laminoplasty?: acomparative study of520patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (PhilaPa1976)2012,37,667-671.
46. Kawaguchi, Y., Matsui, H., Ishihara, H., Gejo, R.&Yasuda, T. Surgical outcome ofcervical expansive laminoplasty in patients with diabetes mellitus. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2000,25,551-555.
47. Aita, I., Hayashi, K., Wadano, Y.&Yabuki, T. Posterior movement and enlargement ofthe spinal cord after cervical laminoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br1998,80,33-37.
48. Tanaka, S., Tashiro, T., Gomi, A.&Ujiie, H. Cervical unilateral open-doorlaminoplasty with titanium miniplates through newly designed hydroxyapatite spacers.Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo)2011,51,673-677.
49. Hirabayashi, S., et al. Comparison of enlargement of the spinal canal after cervicallaminoplasty: open-door type and double-door type. Eur Spine J2010,19,1690-1694.
50. Shiozaki, T., et al. Spinal cord shift on magnetic resonance imaging at24hours aftercervical laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2009,34,274-279.
51.孙天威, et al.颈椎单开门椎管扩大椎板成形术后铰链侧c_5神经根麻痹与不同椎板开门角度的临床分析.中国修复重建杂志2011,25,11,1285-1287.
52.刘洪, H.I.智慧明.伊藤法“单开门”颈椎椎管扩大椎板成形术及其临床应用.中国脊柱脊髓杂志2005,15,9,517-518.
53. Hosono, N., Yonenobu, K.&Ono, K. Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty. Anoticeable complication. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1996,21,1969-1973.
54. Kawaguchi, Y., Matsui, H., Ishihara, H., Gejo, R.&Yoshino, O. Axial symptoms afteren bloc cervical laminoplasty. J Spinal Disord1999,12,392-395.
55. Edwards, C.C.,2nd, Heller, J.G.&Murakami, H. Corpectomy versus laminoplasty formultilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched-cohort analysis. Spine (PhilaPa1976)2002,27,1168-1175.
56. Wada, E., et al. Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervicalspondylotic myelopathy: a long-term follow-up study over10years. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2001,26,1443-1447; discussion1448.
57. Ohnari, H., et al. Investigation of axial symptoms after cervical laminoplasty, usingquestionnaire survey. Spine J2006,6,221-227.
58. Zhang, J., Tsuzuki, N., Hirabayashi, S., Saiki, K.&Fujita, K. Surgical anatomy of thenerves and muscles in the posterior cervical spine: a guide for avoiding inadvertentnerve injuries during the posterior approach. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2003,28,1379-1384.
59. Fujimura, Y.&Nishi, Y. Atrophy of the nuchal muscle and change in cervical curvatureafter expansive open-door laminoplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg1996,115,203-205.
60. Takeuchi, K., et al. Axial symptoms after cervical laminoplasty with C3laminectomycompared with conventional C3-C7laminoplasty: a modified laminoplasty preservingthe semispinalis cervicis inserted into axis. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2005,30,2544-2549.
61. Kato, M., et al. Effect of preserving paraspinal muscles on postoperative axial pain inthe selective cervical laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2008,33, E455-459.
62. Hosono, N., Sakaura, H., Mukai, Y.&Yoshikawa, H. The source of axial pain aftercervical laminoplasty-C7is more crucial than deep extensor muscles. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2007,32,2985-2988.
63.李雷, et al.重建后方韧带复合体的颈椎单开门桥式植骨椎板成形术对术后轴性症状和颈椎曲度的影响.中国修复重建外科杂志2007,21,5,457-459.
64. Machino, M., et al. Cervical alignment and range of motion after laminoplasty:radiographical data from more than500cases with cervical spondylotic myelopathyand a review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2012,37, E1243-1250.
65. Hyun, S.J., Rhim, S.C., Roh, S.W., Kang, S.H.&Riew, K.D. The time course of rangeof motion loss after cervical laminoplasty: a prospective study with minimum two-yearfollow-up. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2009,34,1134-1139.
66.孙宇,潘.陈.朱.刘.蔡.单开门颈椎管扩大椎板成形术对颈椎运动的影响.中国脊柱脊髓杂志2003,13,4,212-214.
67. Takeuchi, K., et al. Cervical range of motion and alignment after laminoplastypreserving or reattaching the semispinalis cervicis inserted into axis. J Spinal DisordTech2007,20,571-576.
68.丁立祥,陈迎春,姚琦,张亘瑷&董福慧. C_3椎板切除并保留c_7棘突的颈椎管扩大双开门成形术.中国桥形外科杂志2009,17,17,1303-1306.
69. Chiba, K., et al. Segmental motor paralysis after expansive open-door laminoplasty.Spine (Phila Pa1976)2002,27,2108-2115.
70.Sasai, K., et al. Preventing C5palsy after laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2003,28,1972-1977.
71. Sakaura, H., Hosono, N., Mukai, Y., Ishii, T.&Yoshikawa, H. C5palsy afterdecompression surgery for cervical myelopathy: review of the literature. Spine (PhilaPa1976)2003,28,2447-2451.
72. Nassr, A., et al. The incidence of C5palsy after multilevel cervical decompressionprocedures: a review of750consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2012,37,174-178.
73. Sun, T., et al.[Clinical analysis of C5nerve root palsy in hinge side and differentangles in lamina open-door after expansion of open-door cervical laminoplasty].Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi2011,25,1285-1289.
74. Katsumi, K., Yamazaki, A., Watanabe, K., Ohashi, M.&Shoji, H. Analysis of C5PalsyAfter Cervical Open-door Laminoplasty: Relationship Between C5Palsy andForaminal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech2011,11,1536-1540.
75. Minoda, Y., et al. Palsy of the C5nerve root after midsagittal-splitting laminoplasty ofthe cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa1976)2003,28,1123-1127.
76. Tsuzuki, N., Abe, R., Saiki, K.&Okai, K. Paralysis of the arm after posteriordecompression of the cervical spinal cord. II. Analyses of clinical findings. Eur Spine J1993,2,197-202.
77. Uematsu, Y., Tokuhashi, Y.&Matsuzaki, H. Radiculopathy after laminoplasty of thecervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1998,23,2057-2062.
78. Yonenobu, K., Hosono, N., Iwasaki, M., Asano, M.&Ono, K. Neurologiccomplications of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1991,16,1277-1282.
79. Epstein, J.A. Extradural tethering effects as one mechanism of radiculopathycomplicating posterior decompression of the cervical spinal cord. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1996,21,1839-1840.
80. Tsuzuki, N., Abe, R., Saiki, K.&Zhongshi, L. Extradural tethering effect as onemechanism of radiculopathy complicating posterior decompression of the cervicalspinal cord. Spine (Phila Pa1976)1996,21,203-211.
81. Xia, Y., Shen, Q., Li, H.&Xu, T. Influence of hinge position on the effectiveness ofexpansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal DisordTech2011,24,514-520.
82. Zhang, H., Lu, S., Sun, T.&Yadav, S.K. Effect of Lamina open Angles in ExpansionOpen-door Laminoplasty on the Clinical Results in Treating Cervical SpondyloticMyelopathy. J Spinal Disord Tech2012,7,1539-1540.