BACKGROUND:
There were few studies to compare the outcomes of different types of cervical laminoplasties.
OBJECTIVE:
To compare the clinical outcomes of double-door cervical laminoplasty with lamina staple (double-door staple), single-door cervical laminoplasty with miniplate (single-door miniplate), and double-door cervical laminoplasty with spacer (double-door spacer).
METHODS:
The study involved 166 patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Fifty-two patients underwent double-door staple, 63 patients underwent single-door miniplate, and 51 patients underwent double-door spacer. The clinical outcomes were measured.
RESULTS:
There was no significant difference in Japanese Orthopedic Association score among the 3 groups (P > .05). The operation time was significantly shorter in double-door staple and single-door miniplate groups than in the double-door spacer group (P < .005). The estimated blood loss was significantly more in the single-door miniplate group than in double-door staple and double-door spacer groups (P < .005). The expansion ratio of cervical intraspinal cross-sectional area decreased in the order of double-door staple > double-door spacer > single-door miniplate. There were no significant differences in the expansion ratio of dural sac cross-sectional area among the 3 groups.
CONCLUSION:
Double-door staple, double-door spacer, and single-door miniplate can achieve favorable clinical outcomes for CSM. The blood loss of double-door staple is less than that of single-door miniplate, and the operation time of double-door staple is shorter than that of double-door spacer. The mean expansion ratio of cervical intraspinal cross-sectional area decreased in the order of double-door staple > double-door spacer > single-door miniplate. Overall, double-door staple is a safe and innovative alternative choice for treatment of CSM.
