Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 159, Issue 12, pp 2379–2384 | Cite as

Patients’ beliefs about diagnosis and treatment of cervical spondylosis with radiculopathy

  • Clemens Weber
  • Maziar Behbahani
  • Roald Baardsen
  • Jens Lehmberg
  • Bernhard Meyer
  • Ehab Shiban
Original Article - Spine



The clinical results of surgical spine care may be influenced by the patients’ understanding and knowledge of his or her condition, treatment options and decision-making process. The aim of this survey study was to evaluate certain beliefs and opinions of patients with a degenerative condition in the cervical spine with a history of cervical radiculopathy such as importance of magnetic resonance imaging, risk factors, treatment alternatives and effectiveness.


An anonymous questionnaire survey was performed on two different patient populations with a degenerative condition in the cervical spine with a history of cervical radiculopathy referred to the outpatients’ clinics of two neurosurgical departments in Germany and Norway. The survey consisted of seven questions: four questions about the respondents’ gender and age, history of previous spine surgery and/or conservative treatment for cervical disorder and three questions regarding the importance of imaging in the decision-making process, patients’ willingness to undergo cervical surgery based on imaging findings even with few or no symptoms and the effectiveness of surgical or conservative treatment.


Two hundred eleven patients answered the questionnaire. Sixty-seven percent of all patients with a degenerative cervical condition believe that results from MRI studies are more important than clinical findings. Forty-seven percent were willing to undergo surgery based on MRI showing abnormalities even without or having few symptoms. Fifty percent believe that surgery is more effective in the treatment of axial neck pain.


Misbeliefs and misconceptions exist concerning certain aspects of the diagnosis and management in patients with degenerative conditions in the cervical spine with a history of cervical radiculopathy in a large proportion of patients referred to neurosurgical outpatient clinics.


Cervical spine Magnetic resonance imaging Spine surgery 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements) or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Ethics Comission of the Medical Faculty at the Technical University of Munich (project no. 40/16S) and the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics for Western Norway. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Supplementary material

701_2017_3356_MOESM1_ESM.docx (118 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 118 kb)


  1. 1.
    Bell RA, Kravitz RL, Thom D, Krupat E, Azari R (2002) Unmet expectations for care and the patient-physician relationship. J Gen Intern Med 17:817–824CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cleary PD, McNeil BJ (1988) Patient satisfaction as an indicator of quality care. Inquiry 25:25–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Weinstein J, Howe J, Ciol M, Mulley AG Jr (2000) Involving patients in clinical decisions: impact of an interactive video program on use of back surgery. Med Care 38:959–969CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O'Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Franz EW, Bentley JN, Yee PP, Chang KW, Kendall-Thomas J, Park P, Yang LJ (2015) Patient misconceptions concerning lumbar spondylosis diagnosis and treatment. J Neurosurg Spine 22:496–502CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ihlebaek C, Eriksen HR (2005) Myths and perceptions of back pain in the Norwegian population, before and after the introduction of guidelines for acute back pain. Scand J Public Health 33:401–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstuck FS, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective. Part 1: the core outcome measures index in clinical practice. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):367–373CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Phelan EA, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Weinstein JN, Ciol MA, Kreuter W, Howe JF (2001) Helping patients decide about back surgery: a randomized trial of an interactive video program. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:206–211 discussion 212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Riew KD, Ecker E, Dettori JR (2010) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the management of axial neck pain in the absence of radiculopathy or myelopathy. Evid Based Spine Care J 1:45–50CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Verbeek J, Sengers MJ, Riemens L, Haafkens J (2004) Patient expectations of treatment for back pain: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:2309–2318CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryStavanger University HospitalStavangerNorway
  2. 2.Department of Neurosurgery, Klinikum Rechts der IsarTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations