Efficacy of surgical treatment in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy
Abstract
Background/Aim. Treatment options for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) are the topic for discussion due to the lack of controlled randomized prospective studies. Also, the natural history of CSM is unpredictable and the efficacy of surgical decompression is still controversial. The aim of this prospective study was to describe the results of surgical treatment of patients with CSM in a single institution. Methods. Fifty-nine patients with symptomatic CSM were enrolled in this single-center prospective study. At the end of the follow-up period of 12 months, 50 patients were analyzed. All patients were operated on; surgical decompression was performed by anterior or posterior surgical approach. Outcome evaluations were obtained preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively by using the following outcome measures: the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) scale, the Nurick score and the Neck Disability Index (NDI). The functional recovery ratio was calculated postoperatively by using Hirabayashi’s formula. Results. According to our results, significant improvements were detected in all outcome variables (mJOA score, Nurick score and NDI). Also, a statistically significant improvement was observed in all three categories of patients according to the preoperative mJOA score (mild, moderate, severe). Twenty-three patients (46%) had a satisfactory functional recovery, while twenty-seven (54%) had an unsatisfactory functional recovery rate. Conclusion. Surgical treatment of CSM is a very effective treating method and it resulted in a significant improvement in all outcome measures for a 1-year follow-up period. New studies could be recommended to evaluate the course of the disease, define the optimal surgical strategy, and better determine surgical outcome predictors.
References
Kalsi-Ryan S, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: the clinical phenomenon and the current patho-biology of an incrisingly prevalent and devastating disorder. Neuroscientist 2013; 19(4): 409‒21.
Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. De-generative Cervical Myelopathy: epidemiology, genetics, and pathogenesis. Spine 2015; 40(12): E675‒93.
Tretault L, Tan G, Kopjar B, Côté P, Arnold P, Nugaeva N, et al. Clinical and surgical predictors of complications following surgery for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results from the multicenter, prospective AOSpine interna-tional study of 479 patients. Neurosurgery 2016; 79(1): 33‒44.
Côté P, Cassidy JD, Carroll LJ, Kristman V. The annual inci-dence and course of neck pain in the general population: a population-based cohort study. Pain 2004; 112(3): 267‒73.
Karadimas SK, Erwin WM, Ely CG, Dettori JR, Fehlings MG. The pathophysiology and natural history of cervical spondylot-ic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa) 2013; 38(22 Suppl 1): S21‒36.
Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Kopjar B, Yoon ST, Arnold PM, Mas-sicotte EM, et al. Efficacy and safety of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results of the AOSpine North America multi-centre study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95(18): 1651‒8.
Benzel EC, Lancon J, Kesterson L, Hadden T. Cervical laminec-tomy and dentate ligamnent section for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord 1991; 4(3): 286‒95.
Nurick S. The natural history and the results of surgical treat-ment of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 1972; 95(1): 101‒8.
Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of relia-bility and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991; 14(7): 409‒15.
Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, Maruyama T, Wakano K. Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitu-dinal ligaments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1981; 6(4): 354‒64.
Henderson FC, Geddes JF, Vaccaro AR, Woodard E, Berry KJ, Benzel EC. Strech-associated injury in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: new concept and review. Neurosurgery 2005; 56(5): 1101‒13; discussion 1101‒13.
Rowland LP. Surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic mye-lopathy: time for a controlled trial. Neurology 1992; 42(1): 5‒13.
Tetreault L, Willson JR, Kotter MLN, Côté P, Nouri A, Kopjar B, et al. Is preoperative duration of symptoms a significant pre-dictors of functional outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for the treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy? Neuro-surgery 2018; https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyy474 (In Press)
Fehlings MG, Tetreault L, Kurpad S, Brodke DS, Wilson JR, Smith JS, et al. Change in functional impairment, disability, and quality of life following operative treatment for degenera-tive cervical myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Spine J 2017; 7(3 Suppl): 53S‒69S.
Fehlings MG, Ahuja CS, Mroz T, Hsu W, Harrop J. Future ad-vances in spine surgery: The AOSpine North America perspec-tive. Neurosurgery 2017; 80(3 Suppl): S1‒S8.
Kadanka Z, Bednarík J, Vohánka S, Vlach O, Stejskal L, Chaloupka R, et al. Conservative treatment versus surgery in spondylotic cervical myelopathy: a prospective randomised study. Eur Spine J 2000; 9(6): 538‒44.
Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednaník J, Smrcka V, Krbec M, Stejskal L, et al. Approaches to sponylotic cervical myelopathy: con-servative versus surgical results in a 3-year follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002; 27(20): 2205‒10; discussion 2210‒1.
Kadaňka Z, Bednařík J, Novotný O, Urbánek I, Dušek L. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: conservative versus surgical treat-ment after 10 years. Eur Spine J 2011; 20(9): 1533‒8.
Ghogawala Z, Benzel EC, Riew KD, Bisson EF, Heary RF. Sur-gery vs conservative care for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgery is appropriate for progressive myelopathy. Neurosur-gery 2015; 62(Suppl 1): 56‒61.
Badhiwala JH, Witiw CD, Nassiri F, Akbar MA, Mansouri A, Wilson JR, et al. Efficacy and safety of surgery for mild degen-erative cervical myelopathy: results of the AOSpine North America and International prospective multicenter study. Neurosurgery 2019; 84(4): 890‒7.