1. Kawai S, Sunago K, Doi K, Saika M, Taguchi T. Cervical laminoplasty (Hattori’s method): procedure and follow-up results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1988 13:1245–50.
2. Kurokawa T, Tsuyama N, Tanaka H, Kobayashi M, Machida H, Nakamura K. Double-door laminoplasty. Bessatsu Seikeigeka (Suppl Orthop Surg) 1982 2:234–40.
3. Miyazaki K, Kirita Y. Extensive simultaneous multisegment laminectomy for myelopathy due to the ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical region. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1986 11:531–42.
4. Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, Suzuki N, Satomi K, Ishii Y. Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1983 8:693–9.
5. Itoh T, Tsuji H. Technical improvements and results of laminoplasty for compressive myelopathy in the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1985 10:729–36.
6. Fields MJ, Hoshijima K, Feng AH, Richardson WJ, Myers BS. A biomechanical, radiologic, and clinical comparison of outcome after multilevel cervical laminectomy or laminoplasty in the rabbit. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000 25:2925–31.
7. Nowinski GP, Visarius H, Nolte LP, Herkowitz HN. A biomechanical comparison of cervical laminaplasty and cervical laminectomy with progressive facetectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993 18:1995–2004.
8. Okada M, Minamide A, Endo T, et al. A prospective randomized study of clinical outcomes in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy treated with open-door or French-door laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009 34:1119–26.
9. Taguchi T,Long term results of surgical procedures of cervical spondylosis myelopathy. Taguchi T, editors. New mook of orthopaedics. Tokyo: Kanehara Co; 1999. p.198–204.
10. Satomi K, Nishu Y, Kohno T, Hirabayashi K. Long-term follow-up studies of open-door expansive laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994 19:507–10.
11. Ogawa Y, Chiba K, Matsumoto M, Nakamura M, Takaishi H, Toyama Y. Postoperative factors affecting neurological recovery after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2006 5:483–7.
12. Chiba K, Ogawa Y, Ishii K, et al. Long-term results of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy: average 14-year follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006 31:2998–3005.
13. Seichi A, Takeshita K, Ohishi I, et al. Long-term results of double-door laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001 26:479–87.
14. Ratliff JK, Cooper PR. Cervical laminoplasty: a critical review. J Neurosurg 2003 98(3 Suppl): 230–8.
16. Nakashima H, Kato F, Yukawa Y, et al. Comparative effectiveness of open-door laminoplasty versus French-door laminoplasty in cervical compressive myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014 39:642–7.
17. Hayashi K, Yone K, Matsunaga S, et al. A comparative study of open-door laminoplasty and French-window laminoplasty for treatment of cervical multisegmental spondylotic myelopathy. Orthop Traumatol 2002 51:312–4.
19. Goel VK, Clausen JD. Prediction of load sharing among spinal components of a C5-C6 motion segment using the finite element approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998 23:684–91.
20. Yang KH, Hu J, White NA, King AI, Chou CC, Prasad P. Development of numerical models for injury biomechanics research: a review of 50 years of publications in the Stapp Car Crash Conference. Stapp Car Crash J 2006 50:429–90.
21. Tani T, Ushida T, Ishida K, Iai H, Noguchi T, Yamamoto H. Relative safety of anterior microsurgical decompression versus laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy with a massive ossified posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002 27:2491–8.
22. Taniyama T, Hirai T, Yamada T, et al. Modified K-line in magnetic resonance imaging predicts insufficient decompression of cervical laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013 38:496–501.
23. Iwasaki M, Okuda S, Miyauchi A, et al. Surgical strategy for cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: part 2: advantages of anterior decompression and fusion over laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007 32:654–60.
24. Seichi A, Chikuda H, Kimura A, et al. Intraoperative ultrasonographic evaluation of posterior decompression via laminoplasty in patients with cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: correlation with 2-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine 2010 13:47–51.
25. Yamazaki A, Homma T, Uchiyama S, Katsumi Y, Okumura H. Morphologic limitations of posterior decompression by midsagittal splitting method for myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999 24:32–4.
26. Saito T, Yamamuro T, Shikata J, Oka M, Tsutsumi S. Analysis and prevention of spinal column deformity following cervical laminectomy: I. Pathogenetic analysis of postlaminectomy deformities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1991 16:494–502.
27. Voo LM, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Cusick JF. Finite element analysis of cervical facetectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997 22:964–9.
28. Toh S, Kawai S, Saika M, et al. An experimental study on roles of the posterior structure of cervical spine. Orthop Traumatol 1992 40:1280–2.
29. Zdeblick TA, Abitbol JJ, Kunz DN, McCabe RP, Garfin S. Cervical stability after sequential capsule resection. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993 18:2005–8.
30. Baisden J, Voo LM, Cusick JF, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N. Evaluation of cervical laminectomy and laminoplasty: a longitudinal study in the goat model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999 24:1283–8.
31. Kode S, Gandhi AA, Fredericks DC, Grosland NM, Smucker JD. Effect of multilevel open-door laminoplasty and laminectomy on flexibility of the cervical spine: an experimental investigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012 37:E1165–70.