All-Level Versus Alternative-Level in Unilateral Laminoplasty: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Abstract

Objective: Titanium mini-plates are applied in unilateral open-door laminoplasty to secure the elevated laminae and prevent re-closure. Whereas the conventional technique fixates every level, some surgeons plate only alternate levels to curb implant costs. Whether they could achieve similar long-term clinical and radiographic efficacy is still questionable. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of alternative-level fixation versus all-level fixation in cervical laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

Methods: A retrospective analysis is conducted on 65 patients who underwent C3–C7 unilateral laminoplasty at Peking University People's Hospital from July 2012 to December 2020. Patients are divided into two groups: alternative-level fixation and all-level fixation. Clinical outcomes, including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospitalization days, and complications, are assessed. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score is used for neurological function evaluation, while pain is assessed with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Radiographic outcomes include changes in anterior–posterior diameter, Pavlov ratio, cervical lordosis (CL), thoracic slope (T1S), and sagittal vertical axis (SVA).

Results: Both groups showed significant improvements in JOA (15.94 ± 0.85 vs. 8.74 ± 1.76 in alternative-level and 16.1 ± 0.79 vs. 8.42 ± 1.84 in all-level) and VAS (1.03 ± 0.87 vs. 5.79 ± 1.18 in alternative-level, 1.06 ± 0.77 vs. 5.35 ± 1.17 in all-level) postoperatively, with no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes between the groups (JOA: 15.94 ± 0.85 vs. 16.1 ± 0.79, p = 0.394; VAS: 1.03 ± 0.87 vs. 1.06 ± 0.77, p = 0.432). Although total hospital costs are significantly lower in the alternative-level fixation group (124,937 ± 5104.01 RMB vs. 88007.53 ± 7014.53, p < 0.001), the all-level fixation group demonstrated better long-term preservation of APD (17.87 ± 0.60 vs. 17.50 ± 0.52) at the final follow-up. Radiographic outcomes, including CL, T1s, and cSVA, show no significant differences between the two groups, indicating comparable spinal alignment outcomes.

Conclusion: Both all-level and alternative-level fixation methods effectively support the lamina and prevent reclosure, with significant improvement in clinical symptoms in both groups at the final follow-up, showing no significant difference in postoperative clinical outcomes between the two. There are no differences in sagittal parameters. All-level fixation method showed better preservation of the spinal canal diameter.

Keywords

all-level / alternative-level / anterior–posterior diameter / cervical spondylotic myelopathy / laminoplasty

References

[1] K. Hirabayashi, K. Watanabe, K. Wakano, et al., “Expansive Open-Door Laminoplasty for Cervical Spinal Stenotic Myelopathy,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 8 (1983): 693-699.

[2] H. Deutsch, P. V. Mummaneni, G. E. Rodts, and R. W. Haid, “Posterior Cervical Laminoplasty Using a New Plating System: Technical Note,” Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 17 (2004): 317-320.

[3] A. E. Park and J. G. Heller, “Cervical Laminoplasty: Use of a Novel Titanium Plate to Maintain Canal Expansion—Surgical Technique,” Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 17 (2004): 265-271.

[4] J. P. Y. Cheung, P. W. H. Cheung, A. Y. L. Cheung, D. Lui, and K. M. C. Cheung, “Comparable Clinical and Radiological Outcomes Between Skipped-Level and All-Level Plating for Open-Door Laminoplasty,” European Spine Journal 27 (2018): 1365-1374.

[5] Z. F. Wang, G. D. Chen, F. Xue, X. W. Sheng, H. L. Yang, and J. Qian, “All Levels Versus Alternate Levels Plate Fixation in Expansive Open Door Cervical Laminoplasty,” Indian Journal of Orthopaedics 48 (2014): 582-586.

[6] H.-L. Yang, G.-D. Chen, H.-T. Zhang, et al., “Open-Door Laminoplasty With Plate Fixation at Alternating Levels for Treatment of Multilevel Degenerative Cervical Disease,” Clinical Spine Surgery 26, no. 1 (2013): E13-E18.

[7] F. Y. Liu, J. H. Yu, L. S. Huo, et al., “Alternate Levels Versus All Levels Mini-Plate Fixation in C3-6 Cervical Laminoplasty: A Retrospective Comparative Study,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 25 (2024): 515.

[8] S. Feng, Q. Zhu, Y. Sun, et al., “Mid- to Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Modified Technique Skip-Level Titanium Plate Fixation in Cervical Laminoplasty Compared to Continuous Fixation,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 20 (2025): 100.

[9] L. N. Wang, L. Wang, Y. M. Song, X. Yang, L. M. Liu, and T. Li, “Clinical and Radiographic Outcome of Unilateral Open-Door Laminoplasty With Alternative Levels Centerpiece Mini-Plate Fixation for Cervical Compressive Myelopathy: A Five-Year Follow-Up Study,” International Orthopaedics 40 (2016): 1267-1274.

[10] K. Tamai, H. Terai, M. Terakawa, S. Takahashi, A. Suzuki, and H. Nakamura, “Open-Door Cervical Laminoplasty Using Instrumentation of Every Level Versus Alternate Levels: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 107 (2025): 144-151.

[11] M. Mizutani, T. Fujishiro, T. Obo, et al., “Impact of Morphological Restoration of the Spinal Cord From the Preoperative to Early Postoperative Periods on C5 Palsy Development,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 35 (2021): 624-632.

[12] T. Kurakawa, H. Miyamoto, S. Kaneyama, M. Sumi, and K. Uno, “C5 Nerve Palsy After Posterior Reconstruction Surgery: Predictive Risk Factors of the Incidence and Critical Range of Correction for Kyphosis,” European Spine Journal 25 (2016): 2060-2067.

[13] Y. Hirano, Y. Ohara, J. Mizuno, and Y. Itoh, “History and Evolution of Laminoplasty,” Neurosurgery Clinics of North America 29 (2018): 107-113.

[14] F. H. Li, H. H. Qiao, Y. C. Yang, J. P. du, X. S. Jin, and B. Wang, “Incidence and Outcomes of C5 Palsy and Axial Pain After Open-Door Laminoplasty or Laminectomy and Fusion: A Meta-Analysis,” World Neurosurgery 128 (2019): e1002-e1009.

[15] C. Nie, K. Chen, Y. U. Zhu, et al., “Comparison of Time-Dependent Resistance Isometric Exercise and Active Range of Motion Exercise in Alleviating the Sensitization of Postoperative Axial Pain After Cervical Laminoplasty,” Musculoskeletal Science & Practice 62 (2022): 102669.

[16] C. Ruan, W. Jiang, W. Lu, Y. Wang, X. Hu, and W. Ma, “Incidence and Risk Factors for the Development of Axial Symptoms Following Posterior Single-Door Laminoplasty: A Retrospective Analysis,” World Neurosurgery 183 (2024): e603-e612.

[17] M. Wang, X. J. Luo, Q. X. Deng, J. H. Li, and N. Wang, “Prevalence of Axial Symptoms After Posterior Cervical Decompression: A Meta-Analysis,” European Spine Journal 25 (2016): 2302-2310.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2025 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.