Preservation of Motion in Spine Surgery

March 7, 2023

doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-22-00956.

Online ahead of print.

Affiliations

Item in Clipboard

Gordon Preston et al.

J Am Acad Orthop Surg.

2023.

Abstract

The number of spinal procedures and spinal fusions continues to grow. Although fusion procedures have a high success rate, they have inherent risks such as pseudarthrosis and adjacent segment disease. New innovations in spine techniques have sought to eliminate these complications by preserving motion in the spinal column. Several techniques and devices have been developed in the cervical and lumbar spine including cervical laminoplasty, cervical disk ADA, posterior lumbar motion preservation devices, and lumbar disk ADA. In this review, advantages and disadvantages of each technique will be discussed.

References

1. Martin BI, Mirza SK, Spina N, Spiker WR, Lawrence B, Brodke DS: Trends in lumbar fusion procedure rates and associated hospital costs for degenerative spinal diseases in the United States, 2004 to 2015. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2019;44:369-376.
1. Lawrence BD, Hilibrand AS, Brodt ED, Dettori JR, Brodke DS: Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology in the cervical spine: A systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37(22 suppl):S52-S64.
1. Suda K, Abumi K, Ito M, Shono Y, Kaneda K, Fujiya M: Local kyphosis reduces surgical outcomes of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:1258-1262.
1. Ratliff JK, Cooper PR: Cervical laminoplasty: A critical review. J Neurosurg 2003;98(3 suppl):230-238.
1. Phan K, Scherman DB, Xu J, Leung V, Virk S, Mobbs RJ: Laminectomy and fusion vs laminoplasty for multi-level cervical myelopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2017;26:94-103.