European Spine Journal

, Volume 23, Issue 7, pp 1508–1514 | Cite as

Early neurological recovery course after surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective study with 2-year follow-up using three different functional assessment tests

  • Hugues Pascal Moussellard
  • Alain Meyer
  • David Biot
  • Frédéric Khiami
  • Elhadi SarialiEmail author
Original Article



Though surgical decompression is today a common option for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), little is known about the exact postoperative early neurological recovery course. The purpose of this study was to analyze the functional recovery, its dynamics, its intensity and its pattern, in the early postoperative period after surgical decompression for CSM.


A prospective non-controlled observational study was performed from March 2006 to July 2008, and included consecutive patients with CSM who underwent surgical decompression. Functional assessments were done before the operation, at 1 month, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after surgery using three tests: the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) test, the nine-hole peg test (9HPT) and the Crockard walking test.


Sixty-seven patients were included (mean age of 61 years). The global JOA score improved after surgery, reaching statistical significance at 1 month (from 11.5 ± 2.6 to 13.6 ± 2.0 points, p = 0.0078), then settling to a plateau till the end of follow-up at 24 months (12.7 ± 2.6 points). The 9HPT and the Crockard test did not show any significant improvement after surgery.


Neurological recovery after surgical decompression has been proved to be very fast during the first month, but stabilizes afterwards. The JOA score is the best assessment to reveal neurological improvement in the early recovery course.


Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Neurological Recovery Early Score 


Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    McCormack B, Weinstein P (1996) Cervical spondylosis: an update. West J Med 165:43–51PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clark E, Robinson P (1956) Complication of cervical spondylosis. Brain 79:483–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fehlings M, Wilson J, Yoon S, Rhee J, Shamji M, Lawrence B (2013) Symptomatic progression of cervical myelopathy and the role of nonsurgical management: a consensus statement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(22 Suppl 1):S19–S20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carol M, Ducker T (1998) Cervical spondylitic myelopathies: surgical treatment. J Spinal Disord 1:59–65Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sampath P, Bendebba M, Davis J, Ducker T (2000) Outcomes of patients treated for cervical myelopathy—a prospective, multicentre study with independent clinical review. Spine 25:670–676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Teramoto T, Ohmori K, Takatsu T, Inoue H, Ishida Y, Suzuki K (1994) A long-term results of anterior cervical spondylodesis. Neurosurgery 35:64–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kawakami M, Tamaki T, Iwasaki H, Yoshida M, Ando M, Yamada H (2000) A comparison study of surgical approaches for cervical compressive myelopathy. Clin Orthop Rel Res 381:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yonenobu K, Hosono N, Iwasaki M, Asano M, Ono K (1992) Laminoplasty versus subtotal corpectomy: a comparative study of results in multisegment cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 17:1281–1284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tetreault L, Kopjar B, Vaccaro A, Yoon S, Arnold P, Massicotte E, Fehlings M (2013) A clinical prediction model to determine outcomes in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing surgical treatment: data from the prospective, multi-center AO Spine North America study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(18):1659–1666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fehlings M, Barry S, Kopjar B, Tim Yoon SAP, Massicotte EM, Vaccaro A, Brodke DS, Shaffrey C, Smith JS, Woodard E, Banco RJ, Chapman J, Janssen M, Bono C, Sasso R, Dekutoski M, Gokaslan ZL (2013) Anterior vs posterior surgical approaches to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy: outcomes of the prospective multicenter AOSpine North America CSM study in 264 patients. Spine 38(26):2247–2252 (Epub ahead of print)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Traynelis V, Arnold P, Fourney D, Bransford R, Fischer D, Skelly A (2013) Alternative procedures for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: arthroplasty, oblique corpectomy, skip laminectomy: evaluation of comparative effectiveness and safety. Spine 38(22 Suppl 1):S210–S231 (Epub ahead print)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheung W, Arvinte D, Wong Y, Luk K, Cheung K (2008) Neurological recovery after surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy—a prospective study. Int Orthop 32(2):273–278PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Engsberg J, Laurysseen C, Ross S, Hollman J, Walker D, Wippold F (2003) Spasticity, strength, and gait changes after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy—a case report. Spine 28:136–139Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pascal-Moussellard H, Despeignes L, Olindo S, Rouvillain J, Catonne Y (2005) Neurological recovery after cervical cord compression for canal stenosis myelopathy. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 91(7):607–614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prabhu K, Babu K, Bot S, Chacko A (2005) Rapid opening and closing of the hand as a measure of early neurologic recovery in the upper extremity after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 86:105–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Al-Tamimi Y, Guilfoyle M, Seeley H, Laing R (2013) Measurement of long-term outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated surgically. Eur Spine J 22(11):2552–2557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yonenobu K, Abumi K, Nagata K, Taketomi E, Ueyama K (2001) Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the Japanese orthopaedic association scoring system for évaluation of cervical compression myelopathy. Spine 26:1890–1895PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oxford-Grice K, Vogel K, Vollmer M (2003) Adults norms for a commercially available nine hole peg test for finger dexterity. Am J Occup Ther 57:570–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singh A, Crockard H (1999) Quantitative assessment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy by a simple walking test. Lancet 354:370–373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hirabayashi K, Satomi K (1998) Operative procédure and results of expansive open-door laminoplasty. Spine 13:870–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednanik J, Smrcka V, Krbec M, Stejskal L (2002) Approaches to cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Conservative versus surgical results in a 3 year follow-up study. Spine 27:2205–2211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, Suzuki N, Satomi K, Ishii Y (1983) Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine 8:693–699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Matsuda Y, Shibata T, Oki S, Kawatani Y, Mashima N, Oishi H (1999) Outcomes of surgical treatment for cervical myelopathy in patients more than 75 years of age. Spine 24:529–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Satomi K, Nishu Y, Kohno T, Hirabayashi K (1994) Long-term follow-up studies of open-door expansive laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine 19:507–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kimura I, Shingu H, Nasu Y (1995) Long-term follow-up of cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated by canal expansive laminoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 77:956–961Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Anderson P, Matz P, Groff M, Heary RF, Holly LT, Kaiser MG, Mummaneni PV, Ryken TC, Choudhri TF, Vresilovic EJ, Resnick DK, Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons (2009) Laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical degenerative myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 11(2):150–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cunningham M, Hershman S, Bendo J (2010) Systematic review of cohort studies comparing surgical treatments for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 35(5):537–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Geck M, Eismont F (2002) Surgical options for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Orthop Clin North Am 33(2):329–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jiang S, Jiang L, Dai L (2012) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylosis: a systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132(2):155–161PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Seichi A, Takeshita K, Ohishi I, Kawaguchi H, Akune T, Anamizu Y (2001) Long-term results of double door laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine 26:479–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Suda K, Abumi K, Ito M, Shono Y, Kaneda K, Fujiya M (2003) Local kyphosis reduces surgical outcomes of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 28:1258–1262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Edwards C, Heller J, Silcox D (2000) T-saw laminoplasty for the management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy—clinical and radiological outcome. Spine 25:1788–1794PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fujiwara K, Yonenobu K, Ebara S, Yamashita K, Ono K (1989) The prognosis of surgery for cervical decompression myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 81:393–398Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yamazaki T, Yanaka K, Sato H, Uemura K, Tsukada A, Nose T (2003) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical results and factors affecting outcome with special reference to age differences. Neurosurgery 52:122–126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Machino M, Yukawa Y, Hida T, Ito K, Nakashima H, Kanbara S, Morita D, Kato F (2012) Persistent physical symptoms after laminoplasty: analysis of postoperative residual symptoms in 520 patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 37(11):932–936PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fukuda K, Ozaki T, Tsumura N, Sengoku A, Nomi M, Yanagiuchi A, Nishida K, Kuroda R, Iguchi T (2013) Neurogenic bladder associated with pure cervical spondylotic myelopathy: clinical characteristics and recovery after surgery. Spine 38(2):104–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chiles B, Leonard M, Choudhri H, Cooper P (1999) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: patterns of neurological deficit and recovery after anterior cervical decompression. Neurosurgery 44:762–770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nakashima H, Yukawa Y, Ito K, Machino MKS, Morita D, Imagama S, Hamajima N, Ishiguro N, Kato F (2011) Validity of the 10-s step test: prospective study comparing it with the 10-s grip and release test and the 30-m walking test. Eur Spine J 20(8):1318–1322PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kadaňka Z, Bednařík J, Novotný O, Urbánek I, Dušek L (2011) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: conservative versus surgical treatment after 10 years. Eur Spine J 20(9):1533–1538PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugues Pascal Moussellard
    • 1
  • Alain Meyer
    • 1
  • David Biot
    • 1
  • Frédéric Khiami
    • 1
  • Elhadi Sariali
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Hopital Pitié SalpétrièreParisFrance

Personalised recommendations