Considerations for Prophylactic Surgery in Asymptomatic Severe Cervical Stenosis
- 614 Downloads
- 3 Citations
Abstract
Background
Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is a devastating pathology that can severely impair quality of life. The symptoms in CSM progress slowly and often do not manifest until they become severe and potentially irreversible. There is a consensus that surgical intervention is warranted in symptomatic patients. The recovery of the neurologic deficit after surgical decompression of the spinal cord varies, and halting the progression of the disease remains the principle aim of surgery.
Questions/Purposes
The aim of this review is to address the key question of whether or not to intervene in cases that have radiographic evidence of significant cervical stenosis yet are asymptomatic or exhibit minimal symptoms?
Methods
The PubMed databases for publications that addressed asymptomatic cervical spondylotic myelopathy were reviewed. The relevant articles were selected after screening all the resulting abstracts. The references of the relevant articles were then reviewed, and cross references with titles discussing CSM were picked up for review.
Results
The search identified 14 papers which were reviewed. Seven articles were found to be relevant to the subject in question. Going through the references of the relevant articles, three articles were found to be directly related to the topic in study.
Conclusion
There is paucity of evidence to support for or against surgery in the setting of asymptomatic cervical spondylotic myelopathy despite radiographic evidence of severe stenosis. Patient factors such as age, level of activity, and risk of injury should be considered in formulating a management plan. Moreover, the patient should play an integral role in the process of decision making.
Keywords
cervical stenosis cervical spondylotic myelopathy nonoperative treatment surgical treatment mild cervical spondylotic myelopathy severe cervical stenosis Japanese orthopedic association classification Ranawat classificationNotes
Disclosures
Conflict of Interest
Abdel Majid Sheikh Taha, MD, Jennifer Shue, MS, and Darren Lebl, MD have declared that they have no conflict of interest. Federico Girardi, MD reports pending patents with Centinel Spine, LP, Ethicon, LANX, Inc., LDR Spine, USA, Inc., LifeSpine, Inc., Orthogem, Ltd., Paradigm Spine, LLC, Pioneer Surgical, Scient’x USA, Small Bone Innovations, LLC, Spinal Kinetics, Spineart USA, Spineview Inc., Wenzel Spine, Inc.; receives royalties for a patent with DePuy Spine, Inc., NuVasive, Inc., Ortho Development Corp., Healthpoint Capital Partners, outside the work.
Human/Animal Rights
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the any of the authors.
Informed Consent
N/A
Required Author Forms
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article.
Supplementary material
References
- 1.Anderson DG, Sayadipour A, Limthongkul W, et al. Traumatic central cord syndrome: neurologic recovery after surgical management. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead, NJ). 2012; 41(8): E104-E108.Google Scholar
- 2.Bednarik J, Kadanka Z, Dusek L, et al. Presymptomatic spondylotic cervical cord compression. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(20): 2260-2269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Benzel EC, Lancon J, Kesterson L, Hadden T. Cervical laminectomy and dendate ligament section cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord. 1991; 4: 286-295.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Boden SD, McCowin PR, Davis DO, et al. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the cervical spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990; 72(8): 1178-1184.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Boden SD, Dodge LD, Bohlman HH, Rechtine GR. Rheumatoid arthritis of the cervical spine. A long-term analysis with predictors of paralysis and recovery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993; 75(9): 1282-1297.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Chad G, Ball MD, Andrew W, Kirkpatrick MD, David R, Williams MD. Prophylactic surgery prior to extended-duration space flight: is the benefit worth the risk? Can J Surg. 2012; 55(2): 125-131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Chiles BW III, Leonard MA, Choudhri HF, Cooper PR. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: patterns of neurological deficit and recovery after anterior cervical decompression. Neurosurgery. 1999; 44(4): 762-769.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Clarke E, Robinson PK. Cervical myelopathy: a complication of cervical spondylosis. Brain. 1956; 79: 483-510.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Emery SE. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: diagnosis and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2001; 9: 376-388.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Fehlings MG, Barry S, Kopjar B, et al. Anterior vs posterior surgical approaches to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy: outcomes of the Prospective Multicenter AOSpine North America CSM study in 264 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013.Google Scholar
- 11.Furlan JC, Kalsi-Ryan S, Kailaya-Vasan A, et al. Functional and clinical outcomes following surgical treatment in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective study of 81 cases. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011; 14: 348-355.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Hukuda S, Mochizuki T, Ogata M, Schichikawa K, Shimomura Y. Operations for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a comparison of the results of anterior and posterior procedures. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1985; 67B: 609-615.Google Scholar
- 13.Kadaňka Z, Bednarík J, Vohánka S, et al. Conservative treatment versus surgery in spondylotic cervical myelopathy: a prospective randomized study. Eur Spine J. 2000; 9(6): 538-544.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Kadaňka Z, Bednařík J, Novotný O, et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: conservative versus surgical treatment after 10 years. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20(9): 1533-1538.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Kanchiku T, Taguchi T, Kaneko K, et al. A correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and electrophysiological findings in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(13): E294-E299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Kaptain GJ, Simmons NE, Replogle RE, et al. Incidence and outcome of kyphotic deformity following laminectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg. 2000; 93: 199-204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Lee F, Turner JWA. Natural history and prognosis of cervical spondylosis. BMJ. 1963; 2: 1607-1610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Lenehan B, Boran S, Street J, et al. Demographics of acute admissions to a National Spinal Injuries Unit. Eur Spine J. 2009; 18(7): 938-942.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Matsunaga S, Sakou T, Taketomi E, Komiya S. Clinical course of patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a minimum 10-year cohort study. J Neurosurg. 2004; 100(3 Suppl Spine): 245-248.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Nurick S. The pathogenesis of spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain. 1972; 95: 87-100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Ranawat CS, O’Leary P, Pellicci P, et al. Cervical spine fusion in rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979; 61-A: 1003-1010.Google Scholar
- 22.Rhee JM, Shamji MF, Erwin MW, et al. Nonoperative management of cervical myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine (Phila pa 1976). 2013.Google Scholar
- 23.Sampath P, Bendebba M, Davis JD, et al. Outcome of patients treated for cervical myelopathy. A prospective, multicenter study with independent clinical review. Spine. 2000; 25: 670-676.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Teresi LM, Lufkin RB, Reicher MA, et al. Asymptomatic degenerative disk disease and spondylosis of the cervical spine: MR imaging. Radiology. 1987; 164(1): 83-88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Whiteson JH, Panaro N, Ahn JH, Firooznia H. Tetraparesis following dental extraction: a case report and discussion of preventiove measures for cervical spinal hyperextension injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 1997; 20(4): 422-425.PubMedGoogle Scholar