European Spine Journal

, Volume 20, Issue 9, pp 1533–1538 | Cite as

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: conservative versus surgical treatment after 10 years

  • Zdeněk KadaňkaEmail author
  • Josef Bednařík
  • Oldřich Novotný
  • Igor Urbánek
  • Ladislav Dušek
Original Article


It is not known whether the results of decompressive surgery to treat the mild and moderate forms of spondylotic cervical myelopathy (CSM) are any better than those of a conservative approach. A 10-year prospective randomised study was performed. The objective of the study was to compare conservative and operative treatments of mild and moderate, non-progressive, or slowly progressive, forms of CSM. Sixty-four patients were randomised into two groups of 32. Group A was treated conservatively while group B was treated surgically. The clinical outcome was evaluated by modified JOA score, timed 10-m walk, score of daily activities recorded by video and evaluated by two observers blinded to the type of therapy, and by subjective assessment by the patients themselves. Seventeen patents died of natural, unrelated causes, during the follow-up. A total of 25 patients in the conservatively and 22 in the surgically treated group were used for the final evaluation. There was no statistically significant difference between both groups in mJOA score, in subjective evaluation by the patients themselves and in evaluation of video-recordings of daily living activities by two observers blinded to treatment mode. There was neither any difference found in the percentage of patients losing the ability to walk nor in the time taken to cover the 10-m track from a standing start. Comparison of conservative and surgical treatment in mild and moderate forms of CSM in a 10-year follow-up has not shown, on average, a significant difference in results. In both groups, patients get better and worse. According to the power analysis it is necessary admit that these results possess the low ability to answer definitely the question which treatment is better for the patients with a mild and moderate non-progressive CSM because of the low number of patients for the final evaluation and for clinically negligible differences between two compared arms. These findings can serve as a worthy odds-on hypothesis which needs the confirmation.


Spondylotic cervical myelopathy Conservative treatment Cervical spondylosis 



The study was supported by the Czech Ministry of Education Research Plan No.: MSM 0021622404.


  1. 1.
    Nurick S (1972) The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 95:87–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kato Y, Iwasaki M, Fuji T et al (1998) Long-term follow-up results of laminectomy for cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Neurosurg 89:217–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goto S, Mochizuki M, Watanabe T et al (1993) Long-term follow-up study of anterior surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy with special reference to the magnetic resonance imaging findings in 52 cases. Clin Othop Rel Res 291:142–153Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hirai O, Kondo A, Aoyama I et al (1991) Anterior decompression surgery of aged patients with cervical myelopathy. No Shinkei Geka 19:1017–1023PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singh A, Choi D, Crockard A (2009) Use of walking data in assessing operative results for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: long-term follow-up and comparison with controls. Spine 34(12):1296–1300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Matsumoto M, Chiba K, Ishikawa M et al (2001) Relationships between outcomes of conservative treatment and magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with mild cervical myelopathy caused by soft disc herniations. Spine 26:1592–1598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benzel EC, Lancon J, Kesterson L et al (1991) Cervical laminectomy and dentate ligament section for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spin Disord 4:286–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dupont WD, Plummer WD (1997) PS power and sample size program available for free on the Internet. Controlled Clin Trials 18:274Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fleiss JL (1981) Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 2nd edn. John Wiley, NewYork, pp 38–46Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lehmann EL (1975) Nonparametrics. Statistical methods based on ranks. Holden-Day, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    LaRocca H (1988) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: natural history. Spine 13:854–855PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clarke E, Robinson PK (1956) Cervical myelopathy: a complication of cervical spondylosis. Brain 79:483–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Epstein JA, Janin Y, Carras R et al (1982) A comparative study of the treatment of the cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Experience with 50 cases treated by means of extensive laminectomy, foraminotomy, and excision of osteophytes during the past 10 years. Acta Neurochir 61:89–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Montgomery DM, Brower RS (1992) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clinical syndrome and natural history. Orthop Clin North Am 23:487–493PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sadasivan KK, Reddy RP, Albright JA (1993) The natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Yale J Biol Med 66:235–242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Symon L, Lavender P (1967) The surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurology 17(2):117–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nurick S (1972) The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 95:87–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shimomura T, Sumi M, Nishida K et al (2007) Prognostic factors for deterioration of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy after nonsurgical treatment. Spine 32:2474–2479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lees F, Turner JWA (1963) Natural history and prognosis of cervical spondylosis. Br Med J 2:1607–1610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Utley D, Monro P (1989) Neurosurgery for cervical spondylosis. Br J Hosp Med 42:62–70Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rowland LP (1992) Surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Time for a controlled trial. Neurology 42:5–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Law MD, Bernhardt M, White AA (1994) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a review of surgical indications and decisions making. Yale J Biol Med 66:165–177Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Braakman R (1994) Management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 57:257–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ebersold MJ, Pare MC, Quast CM (1995) Surgical treatment for cervical spondylitic myelopathy. J Neurosurg 82:745–751PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yonebobu K, Hosono N, Iwasaki M et al (1991) Neurologic complications of surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 16:1277–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gok B, Sciubba DM, McLoughlin GS et al (2008) Revision surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical results and outcome. Neurosurgery 63:292–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Xu BS, Zhang ZL, Le Huec JC et al (2009) Long-term follow-up results and radiographic findings of anterior surgery with Cloward trephination for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spinal Disord Tech 22:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Okamoto A, Shinomiya K, Furuya K et al (1991) Postoperative magnetic resonance in patients with cervical myelopathy. Spine 39:263–267Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kadanka Z, Bednarik J, Vohanka S et al (2000) Conservative treatment versus surgery in spondylotic cervical myelopathy: a prospective randomised study. Eur Spine 9:538–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednarik J et al (2002) Approaches to spondylotic cervical myelopathy: conservative vs surgical results in a three-year follow-up study. Spine 27:2205–2211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kadaňka Z, Mareš M, Bednařík J et al (2005) Predictive factors for mild forms of spondylotic cervical myelopathy treated conservatively or surgically. Eur J Neurol 12(1):16–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zdeněk Kadaňka
    • 1
    Email author
  • Josef Bednařík
    • 1
  • Oldřich Novotný
    • 1
  • Igor Urbánek
    • 1
  • Ladislav Dušek
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of NeurologyMasaryk University and University Hospital BrnoBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Centre of Biostatistics and AnalysesMasaryk University BrnoBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations