Reconstruction of the laminar roof with miniplates for a posterior approach in intraspinal surgery: technical considerations and critical evaluation of follow-up results.

STUDY

DESIGN

A retrospective clinical follow-up study of patients who underwent intraspinal surgery with reconstruction of the laminar roof using titanium miniplates.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the surgical technique of laminar roof reconstruction and to analyze follow-up results with regard to bony healing of the laminae and the development of spinal deformities.

SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA: The reconstruction of the laminar roof was initially proposed to overcome adverse effects associated with extensive cervical laminectomy in children. Because technical evolutions such as the use of an air drill and miniplates have facilitated the procedure, it has gained more widespread use as a posterior approach for intraspinal surgery. Thus, with a sufficient number of patients treated and a longer period of follow up, it seems reasonable to critically evaluate the technique and its suitability as a standard approach for intraspinal surgery.

METHODS

The surgical procedures of 79 patient who underwent intraspinal surgery with osteotomy and reconstruction of a total of 323 spinal laminae using an air drill and miniplates were analyzed. In 59 patients, data of a complete clinical and radiologic follow-up examination were evaluated. Plain radiographs and computed tomography scans were analyzed for bony healing of the laminae and spinal alignment.

RESULTS

Minor complications such as cerebrospinal fluid collections and disturbed wound healing occurred within normal ranges. The was no case of dural, nerve root, or spinal cord injury attributable to laminotomy or laminar reconstruction. Eight (14.3%) patients complained of moderate to severe local pain at the time of follow-up examination and 8 patients stated impaired mobility of their spine at the surgical site. Bony healing was confirmed radiologically in 86.1% of the laminae. In 12 patients, a preexisting spinal deformity worsened after surgery and five patients demonstrated a new spinal malalignment. No patient required additional surgery because of progressive spinal deformity. Intramedullary location of the lesion and cervical location of surgery were significantly associated with the development of spinal malalignment, whereas incomplete bony healing of the laminae was not.

CONCLUSIONS

The reconstruction of the laminar roof using the technique described is safe, well suitable to serve as a standard posterior approach to intraspinal pathologies, and offers distinct advantages over laminectomy. However, some patients, particularly those with intramedullary cervical lesions, could develop spinal malalignment after surgery despite reconstruction of the laminar roof and sufficient bony healing of the laminae.