European Spine Journal

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 128–134

Long-term follow-up results of the Cloward procedure for cervical spondylotic myelopathy

  • Olimpio Galasso
  • Massimo Mariconda
  • Bruno Iannò
  • Marco De Gori
  • Giorgio Gasparini
Original Article



To assess the long-term results of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using the Cloward procedure for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy, and to identify possible clinical outcome predictors.


A total of 14 cases with a 10-year postoperative follow-up were available (82.4 % of the surviving patients). Patients underwent preoperative and postoperative neurological examination. The symptom severity was graded according to the Nurick scale. MRI measurements were obtained preoperatively. Cervical spine radiographs were obtained preoperatively and at the time of follow-up.


The mean improvement of the clinical status of patients on the Nurick scale was 1.43 ± 0.51 (range 1–2) with respect to the baseline values (p < 0.001), with a 62.5 % recovery rate. A positive association between the improvement of the Nurick scale and the length of follow-up was detected with an age-adjusted univariate analysis (p = 0.042). The Nurick grade improvement was also directly related to preoperative lower limb hyperreflexia (p = 0.039), spasticity (p = 0.017), and bladder dysfunction (p = 0.048). At the time of follow-up, an adjacent discopathy was noted above and below the operated level(s) in eight and six patients, respectively.


The Cloward technique is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. The patients’ preoperative neurological status and the length of follow-up affect the grade of postoperative ambulatory improvement.


Cervical spondylotic myelopathy Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion Cloward Long-term follow-up 


  1. 1.
    Bednarik J, Kadanka Z, Dusek L, Novotny O, Surelova D, Urbanek I, Prokes B (2004) Presymptomatic spondylotic cervical cord compression. Spine 29:2260–2269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klineberg E (2010) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a review of the evidence. Orthop Clin North Am 41:193–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Epstein L (2011) Efficacy and outcomes of dynamic-plated single-level anterior diskectomy/fusion with additional analysis of comparative costs. Surg Neurol Int 2:9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobs W, Willems PC, Kruyt M, van Limbeek J, Anderson PG, Pavlov P, Bartels R, Oner C (2011) Systematic review of anterior interbody fusion techniques for single- and double-level cervical degenetative disease. Spine 36:950–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15:602–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murone I (1974) The importance of the sagittal diameter of the cervical spinal canal in relation to spondylosis and myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 56:30–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nurick S (1972) The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 95:87–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rajshekhar V, Muliyil J (2007) Patient perceived outcome after central corpectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Surg Neurol 68:185–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mariconda M, Galasso O, Attingenti P, Federico G, Milano C (2010) Frequency and clinical meaning of long term degenerative changes after lumbar discectomy visualized on imaging tests. Eur J Spine 19:136–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Faldini C, Miscione MT, Acri F, Leonetti D, Nanni M, Chehrassan M, Giannini S (2012) Single level cervical fusion by an anterior approach using autologous bone graft influences the adjacent levels degenerative changes: clinical and radiographic results at 10-year minimum follow-up. Eur Spine J 21(Suppl 1):S90–S93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM, Traynelis VC (2005) Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine 3:417–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gao R, Yang L, Chen H, Liu Y, Liang L, Yuan W (2012) Long term results of anterior corpectomy and fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. PLoS One 7:e34811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cunningham MRA, Hershman S, Bendo J (2010) Systematic review of cohort studies comparing surgical treatments for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 35:537–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Galbraith JG, Butler JS, Dolan AM, O’Bryne JM (2012) Operative outcomes for cervical myelopathy and radiculopathy. Adv Orthop 2012:919153PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lian X-F, Xu J-G, Zeng B-F, Zhou W, Kong W-Q, Hou T-S (2010) Noncontiguous anterior decompression and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective randomized control clinical study. Eur Spine J 19:713–719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Epstein NE (2006) Dynamic anterior cervical plates for multilevel anterior corpectomy and fusion with simultaneous posterior wiring and fusion: efficacy and outcomes. Spinal Cord 44:432–439PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gok B, Sciubba DM, McLoughlin GS, McGirt M, Ayhan S, Wolinsky J-P, Bydon A, Gokaslan ZL, Witham TF (2008) Surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy with anterior compression: a review of 67 cases. J Neurosurg Spine 9:152–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chagas H, Domingues F, Aversa A, Vidal Fonseca AL, de Souza JM (2005) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: 10 years of prospective outcome analysis of anterior decompression and fusion. Surg Neurol 64:S30–S36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wohlert L, Buhl M, Eriksen EF, Fode K, Klærke A, Krøyer L, Lindeberg H, Madsen CB, Strange P, Espersen JO (1984) Treatment of cervical disc disease using Cloward’s technique. III. Evaluation of cervical spondylotic myelopathy in 138 cases. Acta Neurochir 71:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xu B-S, Zhang Z-L, Le Huec J-C, Xia Q, Hu Y-C (2009) Long term follow-up results and radiographic findings of anterior surgery with Cloward trephination for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:105–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jankowitz BT, Gerszten PC (2006) Decompression for cervical myelopathy. Spine J 6:S317–S322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gregorius FK, Estrin T, Crandall PH (1976) Cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and myelopathy. A long term follow-up study. Arch Neurol 33:618–625PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alafifi T, Kern R, Fehlings M (2007) Clinical and MRI predictors of outcome after surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neuoimaging 17:315–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scardino FB, Rocha LP, Barcelos AC, Rotta JM, Botelho RV (2010) Is there a benefit to operating on patients (bedridden or in wheelchairs) with advanced stage cervical spondylotic myelopathy? Eur Spine J 19:699–705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kahraman S, Sirin S, Erdogan E, Atabey C, Daneyemez M, Gonul E (2007) Is dysphonia permanent or temporary after anterior cervical approach? Eur Spine J 16:2092–2095PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ebraheim NA, Lu J, Skie M, Heck BE, Yeasting RA (1997) Vulnerability of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in the anterior approach to the lower cervical spine. Spine 22:2663–2667Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Heeneman H (1973) Vocal fold paralysis following approaches to the anterior cervical spine. Laryngoscope 83:17–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peolsson A, Hedlung R, Vavruch L, Öberg B (2003) Predictive factors for the outcome of anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Eur Spine J 12:274–280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kienapfel H, Koller M, Hinder D, Georg C, Pfeiffer M, Klose KJ, Lorenz W, Griss P (2004) Integrated outcome assessment after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 29:2501–2509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mariconda M, Galasso O, Secondulfo V, Cozzolino A, Milano C (2008) The functional relevance of neurological recovery after lumbar discectomy: a follow-up of more than 20 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:622–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vitzthum HE, Dalitz K (2007) Analysis of five specific scores for cervical spondylogenic myelopathy. Eur Spine J 16:2096–2103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olimpio Galasso
    • 1
  • Massimo Mariconda
    • 2
  • Bruno Iannò
    • 1
  • Marco De Gori
    • 1
  • Giorgio Gasparini
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, School of MedicineUniversity “Magna Græcia” of CatanzaroCatanzaroItaly
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma SurgeryUniversity “Federico II” of NaplesNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations