applied
sciences
Article
Laminoplasty on Kyphotic Cervical Alignments Suggests Poor
Surgical Outcomes: A Comparative Finite Element Analysis of
Laminoplasty on Different Alignments
Norihiro Nishida 1 , Muzammil Mumtaz 2 , Sudharshan Tripathi 2 , Amey Kelkar 2 , Justin Mendoza 2 ,
Yogesh Kumaran 2 and Vijay K. Goel 2, *
1
2
*
Citation: Nishida, N.; Mumtaz, M.;
Tripathi, S.; Kelkar, A.; Mendoza, J.;
Kumaran, Y.; Goel, V.K. Laminoplasty
on Kyphotic Cervical Alignments
Suggests Poor Surgical Outcomes: A
Comparative Finite Element Analysis
of Laminoplasty on Different
Alignments. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9089.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app12189089
Academic Editor: Redha Taiar
Received: 29 June 2022
Accepted: 11 August 2022
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yamaguchi University Graduate School of Medicine,
1-1-1 Minami-Kogushi, Ube City 755-8505, Yamaguchi Prefecture, Japan
Engineering Center for Orthopaedic Research Excellence (E-CORE), Departments of Bioengineering and
Orthopaedics, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606, USA
Correspondence: vijay.goel@utoledo.edu; Tel.: +1-(419)-530-8035
Abstract: Cervical laminoplasty is a useful for treatment for cervical myelopathy. However, this
procedure has limitations for kyphotic cervical alignments. We used the finite element (FE) analysis
and investigated the biomechanical changes in intact and laminoplasty models with lordosis, straight,
and kyphosis cervical alignments. A three-dimensional FE model of the cervical spine (C2–C7) with
ligaments was created from computer tomography. The model was modified with the following cobb
angles (a) intact–lordotic model (intact–L; C2–C7 angle: −10◦ ), (b) intact–straight model (intact–S;
C2–C7 angle: 0◦ ), and (c) intact–kyphotic model (intact–K; C2–C7 angle: 10◦ ). The C3–C6 laminoplasty was conducted on the three intact models, represented by the laminoplasty–lordosis model
(LM–L), laminoplasty–straight model (LM–S), and laminoplasty–kyphosis model (LM–K), respectively. Pure moment with compressive follower load of 100 N to represent the weight of the
head/cranium and cervical muscle stabilization was applied to these models and the range of
motion (ROM), annular stress, nucleus stress and facet forces were analyzed. ROM of intact–K and
LM–K increased when compared to the other models. The LM–K had the highest mobility with 324%
increase in ROM observed under extension, compared to LM–L. In addition, the annular stresses
and nucleus stresses in intact–K and LM–K were higher compared to the other models. The maximum increase in annular stresses was about 309% in LM–K compared to the LM–L, observed at the
C3–C4 segment. However, the facet contact forces were lower in the intact–K and LM–K, compared
to the other models. Cases with cervical kyphosis alignment are at a disadvantage compared to cases
with lordosis or straight alignment and should be treated with caution.
Keywords: finite element method; alignment; stress; laminoplasty; kyphosis
Published: 9 September 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
1. Introduction
published maps and institutional affil-
In cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), cervical disc herniation (CDH), and cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (C-OPLL), asymptomatic patients
with radiculopathy or myelopathy may be considered for surgical decompression [1].
Laminoplasty is a decompression procedure of the lamina for the spinal cord with positive
surgical outcomes and improved techniques [2]. Although anterior decompression and
fixation is also an important technique for decompression of the spinal cord, laminoplasty
is often chosen because it allows for a wider decompression range and is relatively easy
to perform [3,4]. However, complications such as increased kyphosis and axial pain may
occur more often after conducting laminoplasty compared to anterior decompression and
fixation because laminoplasty invades the cervical posterior ligament complex, which can
disturb the cervical sagittal balance [5]. Specifically, laminoplasty for straight or kyphotic
curvatures of the cervical spine is not recommended because the laminoplasty may not
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9089. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12189089
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9089
2 of 13
create enough posterior migration or may cause impingement, stretch injury of the spinal
cord, postoperative kyphotic deformity, and loss of range of motion (ROM) [6,7].
There are no reports that have examined the extent to which the ROM of the cervical
spine, stresses on the intervertebral discs and facet joint contact biomechanics change
when the laminoplasty procedure is performed for different alignments. We examined the
biomechanical changes on when double-door laminoplasty [8] is performed on cervical
spines with lordosis, straight, and kyphosis alignments. We hypothesized that the ROM,
stress contribution of the disc, intervertebral body, and facet loads may change for the
cervical alignment if the same laminoplasty was conducted. This study would provide
mechanically important information for a physician performing laminoplasty and whether
additional anterior decompression and fixation or posterior fixation with instrumentation
is necessary, depending on the cervical spine alignment.
In this study, a C2–C7 three-dimension (3D) FE model of a cervical spine with
three alignments (lordosis, straight, and kyphosis) was created to examine how stress
and mobility in the cervical spine changed for different alignments post double-door
laminoplasty surgery.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Model Development
A validated cervical spine (C2-C7) FE model was developed using computed tomography (CT) images of a healthy adult subject [9]. Use of the CT scans was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the authors’ affiliated institutions and informed consent was obtained from the patient and documented in the electronic medical
record. Three-dimensional reconstruction of the CT scans was performed in MIMICS v15.0
(Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) and mesh construction was performed in IA-FEMESH
(Iowa, IA, USA) with hexahedral elements. The meshed structures of the vertebrae and
intervertebral discs was then assembled in ABAQUS software (Dassault Systèmes, Simulia
Inc., Providence, RI, USA). Ligaments including the anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL),
posterior longitudinal ligament (PLL), interspinous ligament (ISL), supraspinous ligament
(SSL), capsular ligament (CL), and ligamentum flavum (LF) were incorporated onto the FE
model via truss elements. The cortical bone was modeled as a shell with a 0.5 mm shell
surrounding the inner cancellous bone. The intervertebral discs composed of the annulus
fibrosis, which consisted of ground substances and contained embedded fibers oriented
at ±25◦ [10], and the nucleus pulposus. Facet joints were modelled using surface-surface
sliding contacts and Kushka’s joints present in the lower intervertebral discs were modelled using GAPUNI elements [11]. The FE model material properties are summarized in
Table 1 [12–14].
2.2. Cervical Alignments
Cobb Angles were used as cervical spine parameters and calculated per the 4-line
method described by Harrison et al [15,16]. This method involves drawing two parallel
lines on the lateral radiograph. The first is a line from the inferior endplate of C2 to the
posterior margin of the spinous process and the second parallel line is drawn from the
inferior endplate of C7. Perpendicular lines are drawn from the two lines mentioned above
and the angle subtended between the intersection of the perpendicular lines is defined
as the cervical curvature angle. The angles created include the spino-cranial angle (SCA)
which is defined as the angle between the C7 slope and the straight line joining the middle
of the C7 end plate and the middle of the sella turcica. The cervical sagittal vertical axis
(cSVA) is defined as the distance from a vertical plumb line dropped from the center of the
C2 vertebral body to the posterior superior corner of the C7 vertebra. The FE model used for
cervical validation had a C2–C7 Cobb angle of −5◦ . This FE model was modified, and the
three alignments were created by applying displacement/rotations to the cervical vertebrae
until the appropriate alignment was obtained. For example, for creating a kyphotic model,
the C7 vertebra was fixed and rotation at C2 was applied until C2–C7 = 10◦ (kyphosis)
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9089
3 of 13
was obtained. From this method, the following alignments were created (a) intact-lordotic
model (intact-L; C2–C7 angle: −10◦ , cSVA: 25 mm, the C7 slope: 20◦ ), (b) intact-straight
model (intact-S; C2–C7 angle: 0◦ , cSVA: 31 mm, the C7 slope: 22◦ ), and (c) intact-kyphotic
model (intact-K; C2–C7 angle: 10◦ , cSVA: 38 mm, the C7 slope: 24◦ ) (Figure 1a–c).
Table 1. Material properties assigned to the finite element model [12–14].
Component
Material Properties
Constitute Relation
Element Type
Area (mm2 )
Isotropic, Elastic
C3D8
-
Isotropic, Elastic
C3D9
-
Isotropic, Elastic
C3D10
-
Isotropic, Elastic
C3D8
-
Hyper-elastic, Mooney-Rivlin
C3D8
-
Incompressible Hyper-elastic,
Mooney-Rivlin
C3D8
-
Non-linear, Hypoelastic
T3D2
6.1
Non-linear, Hypoelastic
T3D3
5.4
Non-linear, Hypoelastic
T3D4
46.6
Non-linear, Hypoelastic
T3D5
50.1
Non-linear, Hypoelastic
T3D6
13.1
-
-
-
Bone
E = 10,000 Mpa
Vertebral cortical bone
v = 0.3
E = 450 Mpa
Vertebral cancellous bone
v = 0.25
E = 3500 Mpa
Vertebrae-Posterior
v = 0.25
E = 10,000 Mpa
Artificial bone
v = 0.3
Intervertebral Disc
Ground substance of
annulus fibrosis
C10 = 0.7
C01 = 0.2
C10 = 0.12
Nucleus pulposus
C01 = 0.03
D1 = 0
Ligaments
Anterior Longitudinal Ligament
Posterior Longitudinal Ligament
Capsular Ligament
Ligamentum Flavum
Interspinous Ligament
15.0 (<12%), 30.0 (>12%)
v = 0.3
10.0 (<12%), 20.0 (>12%)
v = 0.3
7.0 (<30%), 30 (>12%)
v = 0.3
5.0 (<25%), 10.0 (>25%)
v = 0.3
4.0 (20–40%), 8.0 (>40%)
v = 0.3
Facet Joints
Apophyseal Joints
Non-linear Soft contact,
GAPPUNI elements
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9089
4 of 13
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 1. The intact (C2–C7) FE model. (a) Lordosis model. (b) Straight model. (c) Kyphosis model.
The laminoplasty model. (d) The spinous process was partially resected, about 4 mm of bone from
the center of the lamina was cut, and the medial side of both the facet joints was shaved (C3–C6).
(e) The lamina was opened to the lateral sides. (f) The laminoplasty model (C3–C6).
2.3. Cervical Laminoplasty
Double door laminoplasty was simulated on the three intact models by performing
osteotomy at the central spinous process and lamina. First, the ISL and SSL were resected.
Next, the spinous process was partially resected. About 4 mm of bone from the center of the
lamina was cut, and the medial side of both the facet joints was shaved so that lamina could
be opened (Figure 1d,e). The LF of C2–C3 and C6–C7 was excised because these interfered
with the opening of the lamina, which was opened to the right and left sides (Figure 1f).
Moreover, it widened the narrow canal and simulated the decompression of the spinal cord
posteriorly. The artificial bone with 4 mm height and 8 mm depth was then placed to fit
into the opened lamina (Figure 1f). The artificial bones were attached to the either side
of the lamina via “TIE” constraint formulation in ABAQUS to represent firm attachment
of bone graft to the lamina. The material properties of the artificial bone were the same
as the cortical bone. The same procedure was used to create a double-door laminoplasty
model of C3–C6, in which the lamina and the artificial bone were set to be connected in all
directions (Figure 1f). The C3–C6 double door laminoplasty using this methodology was
conducted on the intact–lordosis, intact–straight, and intact–kyphosis configurations. The
resulting laminoplasty models were represented by laminoplasty–lordosis model (LM–L),
laminoplasty–straight model (LM–S), and laminoplasty–kyphosis model (LM–K).
2.4. Loads and Boundary Conditions
A 1.5 Nm pure moment was applied onto the C2 odontoid process to simulate six
motions: flexion/extension, lateral (left and right) bending, axial (right and left) rotations.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9089
5 of 13
The inferior endplate of C7 was fixed. The model was subjected to preloads which included
a 100N follower load to represent the weight of the head/cranium and cervical muscles
stabilizing the spine [17].
2.5. Data Analyses
The ROM, annular stresses, intradiscal (nucleus) stresses, and facet contact forces were
calculated for intact, LM–L, LM–S, and LM–K. Annular stresses and nucleus stresses were
noted by the maximum von Mises stress. For the facet joint force, the data for facet forces
were averaged for the left/right facets. For example, if C3 ROM was 5◦ and C4 ROM was
3◦ . Then C3–C4 ROM would be 5 – 3 = 2◦ .
The annulus and nucleus stress are calculated directed by the Abaqus software. We
reported the maximum von Mises stress observed on the nucleus/annulus. Similarly, for
facet contact forces, the Abaqus software calculated the maximum force on each facet joint.
We averaged the facet contact force
observed on right/left
facet.
ܽݐܽܦ݈݁݀ܯݐܿܽݐ݊ܫ
െ ܽݐܽܦ݈݁݀ܯݕݐݏ݈ܽ݊݅݉ܽܮ
݄ܲ݁݁݃݊ܽܿ݁݃ܽݐ݊݁ܿݎሺΨሻ
ൌ stress was reported for the annulus and nucleus stress.
ͲͲͳ כFacet
The maximum von Mises
ܽݐܽܦ݈݁݀ܯݐܿܽݐ݊ܫ
contact maximum forces were also reported and averaged for each right/left facet.
The percentage change (%) was calculated using the following equation:
Percentage change (%) =
Intact Model Data − Laminoplasty Model Data
∗ 100
Intact Model Data
3. Results
3.1. ROM
In extension, LM–L models’ ROM decreased by 35%, and LM–S and LM–K models’
ROM increased by 28% and 49% at C2–C7 compared to the intact model. In flexion, LM–L
model’s ROM increased by 3%, and LM–S and LM–K model’s ROM decreased at C2–C3,
C3–C4, C4–C5, and C2–C7 compared to the intact model. In left bending, LM–L model’s
ROM decreased by 20%, and LM–S and LM–K model’s ROM increased by 15% and 26% at
C2–C7 compared to the intact model. In right bending, LM–L model’s ROM decreased by
13%, and LM–S and LM–K model’s ROM increased by 10% and 15% at C2–C7 compared to
the intact model. In left rotation, LM–L model’s ROM decreased by 16%, and LM–S and
LM–K model’s ROM increased by 10% and 16% at C2–C7 compared to the intact model. In
right rotation, LM–L model’s ROM decreased by 15%, and LM–S and LM–K model’s ROM
increased by 8% and 15% at C2–C7 compared to the intact model (Figure 2).
(a)
Figure 2. Cont.
(b)
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9089
6 of 13
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 2. Range of motion: (a) extension, (b) flexion, (c) left bending, (d) right bending, (e) left
rotation, and (f) right rotation. The vertical axis is the angle (degree); the horizontal axis is each
intervertebral level.
3.2. Annular Stress
In extension, the annular stresses decreased by 37%, 39%, and 21% at C2–C3, C3–C4,
and C4–C5 in the LM–L when compared to the intact model. The annular stresses increased
by 18%, 23%, and 11% at C3–C4, C4–C5, and C5–C6 in the LM–S and by 24%, 59%, and 80%
at C3–C4, C4–C5, and C5–C6 in the LM–K when compared to the intact model. In flexion,
the annular stresses decreased by 23% at C3–C4 in the LM–L when compared to the intact
model. The annular stresses increased by 55% at C3–C4 in the LM–S and by 71% at C3–C4
in the LM–K when compared to the intact model. In left bending, the annular stresses
decreased by 16% at C3–C4 in the LM–L when compared to the intact model. The annular
stresses increased by 108% at C3–C4 in the LM–S and by 194% at C3–C4 in the LM–K when
compared to the intact model. In right bending, the annular stresses decreased by 34% at
C3–C4 in the LM–L when compared to the intact model. The annular stresses increased by
24% at C3–C4 in the LM–S and by 48% at C3–C4 in the LM–K when compared to the intact
model. In left rotation, the annular stresses decreased by 27% in the LM–L and by 9% at
C3–C4 in the LM–S when compared to the intact model. The annular stresses increased
by 24% at C3–C4 in the LM–K when compared to the intact model. In right rotation, the
annular stresses decreased by 16% at C3–C4 in the LM–L when compared to the intact
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9089
7 of 13
model. The annular stresses increased by 18% at C3–C4 in the LM–S and by 69% at C3–C4
in the LM–K when compared to the intact model (Figure 3).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 3. Annulus pressure: (a) extension, (b) flexion, (c) left bending, (d) right bending, (e) left
rotation, and (f) right rotation. The vertical axis is stress (egapascal; Mpa); the horizontal axis is each
intervertebral level.
3.3. Nucleus Stresses
In extension, the nucleus stresses decreased in the LM–L, LM–S and LM–K models
compared to the intact model in all levels. For flexion, nucleus stresses increased in the
LM–L model in comparison with the LM–S and LM–K. In left bending, the nucleus stresses
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9089
8 of 13
increased in the LM–K compared to the LM–L and LM–S models except for C2–C3. In
right bending, higher nucleus stresses were observed at all levels for the LM–K compared
to the intact, LM–L and LM–S models. In left and right axial rotation, the nucleus stress
was increased in the LM–K model when compared to the intact, LM–L and LM–S models
(Figure 4).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 4. Nucleus stresses: (a) extension, (b) flexion, (c) left bending, (d) right bending, (e) left rotation,
and (f) right rotation. The vertical axis is stress (Mpa); the horizontal axis is each intervertebral level.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9089
9 of 13
3.4. Facet Contact Forces
In extension, the facet contact forces at all levels for LM–L increased by 20–60%
respectively compared to the intact model. The facet contact forces at all levels for LM–S
and LM–K decreased by 30–45% and 58–95% respectively compared to the intact model.
In lateral bending, the facet contact forces at all levels for LM–L increased by 15–27%
respectively compared to the intact model. The facet contact forces at all levels for LM–S
and LM–K decreased by 10–46% and 19–57% respectively compared to the intact model. In
rotation, the facet contact forces at all levels for LM–L increased by 14–89% respectively
compared to the intact model. The facet contact forces at all levels except for C2–C3 for
LM–S decreased by 24–45% respectively compared to the intact model. The facet contact
forces at all levels for LM–K decreased by 43–90% respectively compared to the intact
model (Figure 5).
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 5. Facet contact forces. (a) extension, (b) lateral bending, (c) axial rotation. Vertical axis is force
(N), horizontal axis is each intervertebral level.
4. Discussion
This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical changes for lordotic, straight, and
kyphotic cervical sagittal alignment models following cervical laminoplasty.
The cervical spine is an important part of the body that supports the head and provides sufficient mobility and protection to the cervical spinal cord, but once neurological
symptoms occur, anterior or posterior decompression (laminectomy or laminoplasty) may
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9089
10 of 13
be required. Laminoplasty is usually reported to increase the stability of the cervical spine.
Seichi et al. reported that mean mobility decreased from 36◦ to 8◦ following double door
laminoplasty [18]. Additionally, Ratliff and Cooper reported that the ROM was reduced
by 50% for double-door laminoplasty relative to pre-operation measurements [19]. The
effect of cervical alignment on surgical intervention is debated. There are few reports on
what Cobb angles are acceptable for cervical laminoplasty. Lee reported that patients with
straight or lordosis (range, 1–14◦ ) may also be suitable for laminoplasty [20]. In general, it
has been reported that laminoplasty is not effective for patients with C-OPLL and having
cervical spine kyphosis along with high cSVA [7,21,22]. The clinical review reported the
ranges of two sagittal parameters for desired post-operative clinical outcomes: C7 slope,
average value 20◦ , must not be higher than 40◦ and cSVA must be less than 40 mm (mean
value 20 mm) [23]. In this analysis, for extension, both bending and both rotations, the
LM–L model only showed a decrease in ROM compared to other models. The ROM became
higher as kyphosis increased. These results agree with reports in the literature that claimed
that complications such as increased kyphosis may occur after conducting laminoplasty
for cases with kyphosis alignment [6,7]. The annulus stresses generally increased as the
kyphosis increased. The largest differences for the annulus stresses between the intact
and laminoplasty models were observed in C3–C4. This could be because the posterior
ligaments were stretched as kyphosis increased, and the laminoplasty damaged the posterior ligaments, resulting in increased stress in the annulus. For nucleus stresses, lower
stresses were observed for the LM–L model than for the intact model in all motions except
for left bending. The facet forces were the highest in the LM–L model, which may be
due to the distance between the facet joints in that specific alignment. In this analysis, the
spinous processes, lamina, and the artificial bones were also closer in the lordotic alignment,
but they never came in contact during any motion. The facet forces in the LM–S model
were higher than the intact model in flexion, bending, and rotation motions, especially
in C2–C3, possibly due to stabilization by laminoplasty. Conversely, in kyphosis, there
was a possibility that the load was further decreased by laminoplasty. The facet force was
reduced in all motions, and the function of the facet joint can be weakened. The results of
the ROM, annulus stresses, nucleus stresses and facet forces suggested that laminoplasty in
cervical kyphosis alignments may result in negative clinical outcomes. Conversely, Kim
showed that patients having within 10◦ of cervical kyphosis had similar postoperative
outcome compared to patients with normative cervical lordotic alignment following posterior decompression with laminoplasty [6]. Matsunaga reported successful neurologic
outcomes for patients with up to 13 degrees of kyphosis after cervical laminoplasty [24].
Thus, the debate continues about sagittal alignment and posterior procedures, and it will
be necessary to analyze a model with increased kyphosis angle in the future.
The published studies on the biomechanical effects of laminoplasty of the cervical
spine can be largely divided into FE analysis and cadaver analysis studies. In FE analysis
studies, reports of laminectomy are far more common than reports of laminoplasty [25].
We did not analyze laminectomy in this study. Hashiguchi reported the difference in
stresses in the cervical spine after different laminoplasty surgeries including open door
laminoplasty, French door laminoplasty, and double-door laminoplasty. They reported that
laminoplasty was more stable than the intact model [26]. In our study, the results were
similar only for LM–L. Kode reported that during flexion, the percent changes in C2–T1
ROM of LM resulted in a 20% increase, and in left bending, a decrease of 20% was observed.
Similarly, left axial rotation resulted in a 15% decrease in motion at C6–C7 after double-door
laminoplasty [27]. In our study, LM–L showed the same trend; however, previous reports
did not consider cervical alignment.
In cadaver analysis studies, Kubo reported three-dimensional kinematic changes after
double-door cervical laminoplasty. They found that laminoplasty showed no significant
differences in motion compared with intact except in axial rotation [28]. Subramaniam
reported that open-door laminoplasty left the spine in a significantly more stable condition
than laminectomy after comparing biomechanical stability during flexion and extension [29].
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9089
11 of 13
These results indicated the contribution of laminoplasty to stability. Our results also showed
a similar trend for LM–L. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to examine
various sagittal alignments on the cervical spine.
There are several limitations to our study. The models do not include muscles, although the effect of musculature was addressed by the follower load technique [17]. Additionally, the only cervical alignments analyzed were lordotic, straight, and kyphosis
alignments. A model with increased kyphosis should also be explored. The current study
does not include a spinal cord, nor does it take osteoporosis or osteoarthritis into consideration, which may alter the material properties of the bone. Kyphosis of the thoracic spine
and total spine alignment were also not considered. This model simulates an immediate
postoperative scenario and does not consider conditions such as fusion and non-fusion of
the lamina. The study also does not fully simulate the long-term outcome of laminoplasty.
Although there are several methods of laminoplasty [26], the current study only analyzes
double-door laminoplasty. FE analysis is a one-time event analyses for a single model.
It does not allow for subsequent analysis, such as the evaluation of muscle training and
other statistical factors due to rehabilitation. Therefore, multivariate analysis cannot be
performed as in clinical analysis. However, our analysis was consistent with previous
biomechanical and clinical studies [24,26,29]. Despite these limitations, this study provides valuable insight on the biomechanical outcome of laminoplasty in different cervical
sagittal alignments.
5. Conclusions
An FE model created from medical images was used to analyze laminoplasty for
different cervical sagittal alignments (lordotic, straight, and kyphotic). In the lordotic
model, we observed reduction in ROM, annulus stress, and nucleus stress compared to the
intact model. In the straight model, we observed higher ROM, annulus stress, and nucleus
stress compared to intact and lordotic model. In the kyphotic model, we observed the
highest increase in the ROM, annulus stress, and nucleus compared to the intact model. In
summary, patient cases with a cervical kyphosis alignment are disadvantageous compared
to a case with a lordotic or straight alignment and should be treated with caution when
considering laminoplasty.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.N.; data curation, M.M., N.N. and S.T.; formal analysis,
M.M., N.N. and S.T.; funding acquisition, V.K.G.; methodology, N.N. and A.K.; project administration,
N.N. and M.M.; supervision, V.K.G.; validation, M.M. and N.N.; visualization, S.T.; writing—original
draft, N.N. and Y.K.; writing—review and editing, M.M., N.N., A.K., J.M. and V.K.G. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of
the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of The University
of Toledo.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from the subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available.
Acknowledgments: The work was supported in part by the NSF Industry/University Cooperative
Research Center at the University of California at San Francisco, University of Toledo, and Ohio
State University.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9089
12 of 13
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Boody, B.S.; Lendnerm, M.; Vaccaro, A.R. Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine: A review. Int.
Orthop. 2019, 43, 797–805. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hirabayashi, S.; Kitagawa, T.; Yamamoto, I.; Yamada, K.; Kawano, H. Development and Achievement of Cervical Laminoplasty
and Related Studies on Cervical Myelopathy. Spine Surg. Relat. Res. 2020, 4, 8–17. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lee, N.J.; Kim, J.S.; Park, P.; Riew, K.D. A Comparison of Various Surgical Treatments for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A
Propensity Score Matched Analysis. Glob. Spine J. 2022, 12, 1109–1118. [CrossRef]
Yoshii, T.; Egawa, S.; Chikuda, H.; Kaito, T.; Mori, K.; Koda, M.; Egawa, S.; Hasegawa, T.; Imagama, S.; Yoshida, M.; et al. A
systematic review and meta-analysis comparing anterior decompression with fusion and posterior laminoplasty for cervical
spondylotic myelopathy. J. Orthop. Sci. 2021, 26, 116–122. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tang, J.A.; Scheer, J.K.; Smith, J.S.; Deviren, V.; Bess, S.; Hart, R.A.; Lafage, V.; Shaffrey, C.I.; Schwab, F.; Ames, C.P. The impact of
standing regional cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes in posterior cervical fusion surgery. Neurosurgery 2015, 76 (Suppl. 1),
S14–S21; Discussion S. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kim, S.W.; Jang, S.B.; Lee, H.M.; Lee, J.H.; Lee, M.U.; Kim, J.W.; Yee, J.S. Analysis of Cervical Spine Alignment and its Relationship
with Other Spinopelvic Parameters after Laminoplasty in Patients with Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 713.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Machino, M.; Yukawa, Y.; Hida, T.; Ito, K.; Nakashima, H.; Kanbara, S.; Morita, D.; Kato, F. Cervical alignment and range of
motion after laminoplasty: Radiographical data from more than 500 cases with cervical spondylotic myelopathy and a review of
the literature. Spine 2012, 37, E1243–E1250. [CrossRef]
Kurokawa, R.; Kim, P. Cervical Laminoplasty: The History and the Future. Neurol. Med. -Chir. 2015, 55, 529–539. [CrossRef]
Nishida, N.; Mumtaz, M.; Tripathi, S.; Kelkar, A.; Sakai, T.; Goel, V.K. Biomechanical Analysis of Posterior Ligaments of Cervical
Spine and Laminoplasty. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 7645. [CrossRef]
Kallemeyn, N.; Gandhi, A.; Kode, S.; Shivanna, K.; Smucker, J.; Grosland, N. Validation of a C2-C7 cervical spine finite element
model using specimen-specific flexibility data. Med. Eng. Phys. 2010, 32, 482–489. [CrossRef]
Mumtaz, M.; Zafarparandeh, I.; Erbulut, D.U. Investigation into Cervical Spine Biomechanics Following Single, Multilevel and
Hybrid Disc Replacement Surgery with Dynamic Cervical Implant and Fusion: A Finite Element Study. Bioengineering 2022, 9, 16.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Finn, M.A.; Brodke, D.S.; Daubs, M.; Patel, A.; Bachus, K.N. Local and global subaxial cervical spine biomechanics after
single-level fusion or cervical arthroplasty. Eur. Spine J. 2009, 18, 1520–1527. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Goel, V.K.; Clausen, J.D. Prediction of load sharing among spinal components of a C5-C6 motion segment using the finite element
approach. Spine 1998, 23, 684–691. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Little, J.P.; Adam, C.J.; Evans, J.H.; Pettet, G.J.; Pearcy, M.J. Nonlinear finite element analysis of anular lesions in the L4/5
intervertebral disc. J. Biomech. 2007, 40, 2744–2751. [CrossRef]
Ling, F.P.; Chevillotte, T.; Leglise, A.; Thompson, W.; Bouthors, C.; Le Huec, J.C. Which parameters are relevant in sagittal balance
analysis of the cervical spine? A literature review. Eur. Spine J. 2018, 27 (Suppl. 1), 8–15. [CrossRef]
Harrison, D.E.; Harrison, D.D.; Cailliet, R.; Troyanovich, S.J.; Janik, T.J.; Holland, B. Cobb method or Harrison posterior tangent
method: Which to choose for lateral cervical radiographic analysis. Spine 2000, 25, 2072–2078. [CrossRef]
Patwardhan, A.G.; Havey, R.M.; Carandang, G.; Simonds, J.; Voronov, L.I.; Ghanayem, A.J.; Meade, K.P.; Gavin, T.M.; Paxinos, O.
Effect of compressive follower preload on the flexion-extension response of the human lumbar spine. J. Orthop. Res. 2003, 21,
540–546. [CrossRef]
Seichi, A.; Takeshita, K.; Ohishi, I.; Kawaguchi, H.; Akune, T.; Anamizu, Y.; Kitagawa, T.; Nakamura, K. Long-term results of
double-door laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine 2001, 26, 479–487. [CrossRef]
Ratliff, J.K.; Cooper, P.R. Cervical laminoplasty: A critical review. J. Neurosurg. 2003, 98 (Suppl. 3), 230–238. [CrossRef]
Lee, J.Y.; Sharan, A.; Baron, E.M.; Lim, M.R.; Grossman, E.; Albert, T.J.; Vaccaro, A.R.; Hilibrand, A.S. Quantitative prediction of
spinal cord drift after cervical laminectomy and arthrodesis. Spine 2006, 31, 1795–1798. [CrossRef]
Inose, H.; Yoshii, T.; Kimura, A.; Takeshita, K.; Inoue, H.; Maekawa, A.; Endo, K.; Furuya, T.; Nakamura, A.; Mori, K.; et al.
Factors Negatively Influencing Postoperative Improvement after Laminoplasty in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy. Clin. Spine
Surg. 2021, 35, E230–E235. [CrossRef]
Bridges, K.J.; Simpson, L.N.; Bullis, C.L.; Rekito, A.; Sayama, C.M.; Than, K.D. Combined Laminoplasty and Posterior Fusion for
Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Treatment: A Literature Review. Asian Spine J. 2018, 12, 446–458. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Azimi, P.; Yazdanian, T.; Benzel, E.C.; Hai, Y.; Montazeri, A. Sagittal balance of the cervical spine: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Eur. Spine J. 2021, 30, 1411–1439. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Matsunaga, S.; Sakou, T.; Nakanisi, K. Analysis of the cervical spine alignment following laminoplasty and laminectomy. Spinal
Cord 1999, 37, 20–24. [CrossRef]
Khuyagbaatar, B.; Kim, K.; Park, W.M.; Lee, S.; Kim, Y.H. Increased stress and strain on the spinal cord due to ossification of the
posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine under flexion after laminectomy. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H 2017, 231, 898–906.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hashiguchi, A.; Kanchiku, T.; Nishida, N.; Taguchi, T. Biomechanical Study of Cervical Posterior Decompression. Asian Spine J.
2018, 12, 391–397. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9089
27.
28.
29.
13 of 13
Kode, S.; Kallemeyn, N.A.; Smucker, J.D.; Fredericks, D.C.; Grosland, N.M. The effect of multi-level laminoplasty and laminectomy
on the biomechanics of the cervical spine: A finite element study. Iowa Orthop. J. 2014, 34, 150–157. [PubMed]
Kubo, S.; Goel, V.K.; Yang, S.J.; Tajima, N. The biomechanical effects of multilevel posterior foraminotomy and foraminotomy
with double-door laminoplasty. J. Spinal Disord. Tech. 2002, 15, 477–485. [CrossRef]
Subramaniam, V.; Chamberlain, R.H.; Theodore, N.; Baek, S.; Safavi-Abbasi, S.; Senoglu, M.; Sonntag, V.K.H.; Crawford, N.R.
Biomechanical effects of laminoplasty versus laminectomy: Stenosis and stability. Spine 2009, 34, E573–E578. [CrossRef]