Evaluation of conservative treatment and timing of surgical intervention for mild forms of cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Kong,Ling-De; Meng,Ling-Chen; Wang,Lin-Feng; Shen,Yong; Wang,Pan; Shang,Zi-Kun

doi:10.3892/etm.2013.1224

Evaluation of conservative treatment and timing of surgical intervention for mild forms of cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Authors:
- Ling-De Kong
- Ling-Chen Meng
- Lin-Feng Wang
- Yong Shen
- Pan Wang
- Zi-Kun Shang
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Spine Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei 050051, P.R. China
Published online on: July 16, 2013 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2013.1224
Pages: 852-856

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The optimal management approach for patients with mild forms of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM) has not been well established. The aim of the present study was to investigate the outcome of conservative treatment, identify prognostic factors and provide evidence for the timing of surgical intervention. A total of 90 patients with MCSM attending hospital between February 2007 and January 2009 were prospectively enrolled. Initially, all patients received conservative treatment and were followed up periodically. When a deterioration in myelopathy was clearly identified, surgical treatment was conducted. Clinical and radiological factors correlating with the deterioration were examined, and final clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score. At the end of January 2012, follow‑ups of >3 years were completed. Seventy-eight patients were available for data analysis. Only 21 patients (26.9%) deteriorated and underwent surgery thereafter (group A), while the remaining 57 patients (73.1%) were treated conservatively throughout (group B). Statistical analysis revealed that segmental instability and cervical spinal stenosis were adverse factors for the prognosis of conservative treatment. Although the JOA scores of the patients in group A declined initially, following surgical intervention, no significant differences were identified in JOA scores between the two groups at the time of the final follow-up (P=0.46). In summary, conservative treatment is effective in MCSM patients. Patients with segmental instability and cervical spinal stenosis have a tendency to deteriorate, but conservative treatment remains the recommendation for the first action. If the myelopathy deteriorates during conservative treatment, timely surgical intervention is effective.

View Figures

View References

1	Holly LT, Matz PG, Anderson PA, et al: Clinical prognostic indicators of surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 11:112–118. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Koyanagi T, Hirabayashi K, Satomi K, Toyama Y and Fujimura Y: Predictability of operative results of cervical compression myelopathy based on preoperative computed tomographic myelography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 18:1958–1963. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar
3	Zhang P, Shen Y, Zhang YZ, Ding WY and Wang LF: Significance of increased signal intensity on MRI in prognosis after surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Clin Neurosci. 18:1080–1083. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Acharya S, Srivastava A, Virmani S and Tandon R: Resolution of physical signs and recovery in severe cervical spondylotic myelopathy after cervical laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 35:E1083–E1087. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Cheung WY, Arvinte D, Wong YW, Luk KD and Cheung KM: Neurological recovery after surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy - a prospective study. Int Orthop. 32:273–278. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Gok B, Sciubba DM, McLoughlin GS, et al: Surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy with anterior compression: a review of 67 cases. J Neurosurg Spine. 9:152–157. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Oshima Y, Seichi A, Takeshita K, et al: Natural course and prognostic factors in patients with mild cervical spondylotic myelopathy with increased signal intensity on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 37:1909–1913. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar
8	Sumi M, Miyamoto H, Suzuki T, Kaneyama S, Kanatani T and Uno K: Prospective cohort study of mild cervical spondylotic myelopathy without surgical treatment. J Neurosurg Spine. 16:8–14. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Fouyas IP, Statham PF and Sandercock PA: Cochrane review on the role of surgery in cervical spondylotic radiculomyelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 27:736–747. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Kadaňka Z, Bednařík J, Novotný O, Urbánek I and Dušek L: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: conservative versus surgical treatment after 10 years. Eur Spine J. 20:1533–1538. 2011.PubMed/NCBI
11	Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednaník J, et al: Approaches to spondylotic cervical myelopathy: conservative versus surgical results in a 3-year follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 27:2205–2211. 2002.PubMed/NCBI
12	Angevine PD, Zivin JG and McCormick PC: Cost-effectiveness of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical spondylosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 30:1989–1997. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG, et al: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 32:2310–2317. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Shimomura T, Sumi M, Nishida K, et al: Prognostic factors for deterioration of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy after nonsurgical treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 32:2474–2479. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Yoshimatsu H, Nagata K, Goto H, et al: Conservative treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. prediction of treatment effects by multivariate analysis. Spine J. 1:269–273. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednarík J, et al: Predictive factors for mild forms of spondylotic cervical myelopathy treated conservatively or surgically. Eur J Neurol. 12:16–24. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Borden JN: Good Samaritan cervical traction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 113:162–163. 1975. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Kawasaki M, Tani T, Ushida T and Ishida K: Anterolisthesis and retrolisthesis of the cervical spine in cervical spondylotic myelopathy in the elderly. J Orthop Sci. 12:207–213. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Yamazaki T, Yanaka K, Sato H, Uemura K, Tsukada A and Nose T: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical results and factors affecting outcome with special reference to age differences. Neurosurgery. 52:122–126. 2003.PubMed/NCBI
20	Naderi S, Ozgen S, Pamir MN, Ozek MM and Erzen C: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical results and factors affecting prognosis. Neurosurgery. 43:43–50. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Suri A, Chabbra RP, Mehta VS, Gaikwad S and Pandey RM: Effect of intramedullary signal changes on the surgical outcome of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J. 3:33–45. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Fujiwara K, Yonenobu K, Ebara S, Yamashita K and Ono K: The prognosis of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy. An analysis of the factors involved. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 71:393–398. 1989.PubMed/NCBI
23	Murone I: The importance of the sagittal diameters of the cervical spinal canal in relation to spondylosis and myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 56:30–36. 1974.PubMed/NCBI
24	Edwards WC and LaRocca H: The developmental segmental sagittal diameter of the cervical spinal canal in patients with cervical spondylosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 8:20–27. 1983. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Pavlov H, Torg JS, Robie B and Jahre C: Cervical spinal stenosis: determination with vertebral body ratio method. Radiology. 164:771–775. 1987. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI