Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Zervikaler Spinalkanalstenose

Spinale Enge — konservativ oder operativ behandeln?

  • zertifizierte Fortbildung
  • Published:
InFo Neurologie & Psychiatrie Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Bei der zervikalen spondylotischen Myelopathie kommt es zu einer Affektion des zervikalen Rückenmarks durch Kompression im Rahmen einer Spondylose mit der entsprechenden klinischen Symptomatik. Der Spontanverlauf der Erkrankung kann interindividuell sehr variabel sein, was zu Unsicherheiten hinsichtlich Behandlungsindikationen und etwaiger Operationsentscheidung führt. Die konservative Therapie muss von engmaschigen Kontrollen begleitet werden, damit bei weiterer Progredienz die operative Dekompression des Rückenmarks weitere Markschäden verhindern kann. Die Art der Operation und der Zugangsweg hängen vom pathophysiologischen Mechanismus ab, der zu der Spinalkanalstenose geführt hat und vom Allgemeinzustand des Patienten.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

1

Literatur

  1. Nurick S. The pathogenesis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Acta Neurol Belg 1976; 76: 274–275

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ogino H, Tada K, Okada K et al. Canal diameter, anteroposterior compression ratio, and spondylotic myelopathy of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1983; 8: 1–15

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bohlman HH, Emery SE. The pathophysiology of cervical spondylosis and myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1988; 13: 843–846

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ferguson RJ, Caplan LR. Cervical spondylitic myelopathy. Neurol Clin 1985; 3: 373–382

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Parke WW. Correlative anatomy of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1988; 13: 831–837

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. White AA, Panjabi MM. Biomechanical considerations in the surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1988; 13: 856–860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. PALLIS C, JONES AM, SPILLANE JD. Cervical spondylosis; incidence and implications. Brain 1954; 77: 274–289

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Shedid D, Benzel EC. Cervical spondylosis anatomy: pathophysiology and biomechanics. Neurosurgery 2007; 60: S7–13

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schairer WW, Carrer A, Lu M et al. The increased prevalence of cervical spondylosis in patients with adult thoracolumbar spinal deformity. J Spinal Disord Tech 2014; 27: E305–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Teresi LM, Lufkin RB, Reicher MA et al. Asymptomatic degenerative disk disease and spondylosis of the cervical spine: MR imaging. Radiology 1987; 164: 83–88

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Moore AP, Blumhardt LD. A prospective survey of the causes of non-traumatic spastic paraparesis and tetraparesis in 585 patients. Spinal Cord 1997; 35: 361–367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Alker G. Neuroradiology of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1988; 13: 850–853

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dong F, Shen C, Jiang S et al. Measurement of volume-occupying rate of cervical spinal canal and its role in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J 2013; 22: 1152–1157

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. BURROWS EH. The sagittal diameter of the spinal canal in cervical spondylosis. Clin Radiol 1963; 14: 77–86

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yue WM, Tan SB, Tan MH et al. The Torg—Pavlov ratio in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a comparative study between patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy and a nonspondylotic, nonmyelopathic population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26: 1760–1764

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Aebli N, Wicki AG, Rüegg TB et al. The Torg-Pavlov ratio for the prediction of acute spinal cord injury after a minor trauma to the cervical spine. Spine J 2013; 13: 605–612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fehlings MG, Skaf G. A review of the pathophysiology of cervical spondylotic myelopathy with insights for potential novel mechanisms drawn from traumatic spinal cord injury. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998; 23: 2730–2737

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Thier P, Dichgans J, Grote E. Die zervikale spondylotische Myelopathie. Akt Neurol 1992; 19: 119–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. LaRocca H. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: natural history. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1988; 13: 854–855

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. BRADSHAW P. Some aspects of cervical spondylosis. Q J Med 1957; 26: 177–208

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. BRAIN WR, NORTHFIELD D, WILKINSON M. The neurological manifestations of cervical spondylosis. Brain 1952; 75: 187–225

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Harrop JS, Hanna A, Silva MT et al. Neurological manifestations of cervical spondylosis: an overview of signs, symptoms, and pathophysiology. Neurosurgery 2007; 60: S14–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rao R. Neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, and cervical myelopathy: pathophysiology, natural history, and clinical evaluation. Instr Course Lect 2003; 52: 479–488

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Matsumoto M, Chiba K, Ishikawa M et al. Relationships between outcomes of conservative treatment and magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with mild cervical myelopathy caused by soft disc herniations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26: 1592–1598

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Wilberger JE, Jr., Chedid MK. Acute cervical spondylytic myelopathy. Neurosurgery 1988; 22: 145–146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Barnes MP, Saunders M. The effect of cervical mobility on the natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1984; 47: 17–20

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Matz PG, Anderson PA, Holly LT et al. The natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2009; 11: 104–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang C, Das SK, Yang D-J et al. Application of magnetic resonance imaging in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. World J Radiol 2014; 6: 826–832

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Ellingson BM, Salamon N, Holly LT. Advances in MR imaging for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J 2013, DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2915-1

  30. Matsuda Y, Miyazaki K, Tada K et al. Increased MR signal intensity due to cervical myelopathy. Analysis of 29 surgical cases. J Neurosurg 1991; 74: 887–892

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Morio Y, Teshima R, Nagashima H et al. Correlation between operative outcomes of cervical compression myelopathy and mri of the spinal cord. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26: 1238–1245

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Avadhani A, Rajasekaran S, Shetty AP. Comparison of prognostic value of different MRI classifications of signal intensity change in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J 2010; 10: 475–485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Matsumoto M, Toyama Y, Ishikawa M et al. Increased signal intensity of the spinal cord on magnetic resonance images in cervical compressive myelopathy. Does it predict the outcome of conservative treatment? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 25: 677–682

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Wada E, Yonenobu K, Suzuki S et al. Can intramedullary signal change on magnetic resonance imaging predict surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999; 24: 455–461; discussion 462

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Golash A, Birchall D, Laitt RD et al. Significance of CSF area measurements in cervical spondylitic myelopathy. Br J Neurosurg 2001; 15: 17–21

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Perneczky G, Böck FW, Neuhold A et al. Diagnosis of cervical disc disease. MRI versus cervical myelography. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1992; 116: 44–48

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Uda T, Takami T, Tsuyuguchi N et al. Assessment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy using diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging parameter at 3.0 tesla. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38: 407–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Yu YL, Jones SJ. Somatosensory evoked potentials in cervical spondylosis. Correlation of median, ulnar and posterior tibial nerve responses with clinical and radiological findings. Brain 1985; 108 (Pt 2): 273–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lo YL. How has electrophysiology changed the management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy? Eur J Neurol 2008; 15: 781–786

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lyu RK, Tang LM, Chen CJ et al. The use of evoked potentials for clinical correlation and surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy with intramedullary high signal intensity on MRI. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004; 75: 256–261

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Bednarik J, Kadanka Z, Dusek L et al. Presymptomatic spondylotic cervical myelopathy: an updated predictive model. Eur Spine J 2008; 17: 421-431

  42. Fouyas IP, Statham PFX, Sandercock PAG. Cochrane review on the role of surgery in cervical spondylotic radiculomyelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002; 27: 736–747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednarík J et al. Predictive factors for spondylotic cervical myelopathy treated conservatively or surgically. Eur J Neurol 2005; 12: 55–63

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Fehlings MG, Arvin B. Surgical management of cervical degenerative disease: the evidence related to indications, impact, and outcome. J Neurosurg Spine 2009; 11: 97–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sampath P, Bendebba M, Davis JD et al. Outcome of patients treated for cervical myelopathy. A prospective, multicenter study with independent clinical review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 25: 670–676

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. CLARKE E, ROBINSON PK. Cervical myelopathy: a complication of cervical spondylosis. Brain 1956; 79: 483–510

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Jeffreys RV. The surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy due to spondylosis and disc degeneration. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1986; 49: 353–361

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Irvine GB, Strachan WE. The long-term results of localised anterior cervical decompression and fusion in spondylotic myelopathy. Paraplegia 1987; 25: 18–22

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Houten JK, Cooper PR. Laminectomy and posterior cervical plating for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: effects on cervical alignment, spinal cord compression, and neurological outcome. Neurosurgery 2003; 52: 1081–1087; discussion 1087-1088

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kadoya S, Iizuka H, Nakamura T. Long-term outcome for surgically treated cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and myelopathy. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2003; 43: 228–240; discussion 241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mummaneni PV, Kaiser MG, Matz PG et al. Cervical surgical techniques for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2009; 11: 130–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Rao R. Neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, and cervical myelopathy: pathophysiology, natural history, and clinical evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84-A: 1872–1881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Chiles BW, Leonard MA, Choudhri HF et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: patterns of neurological deficit and recovery after anterior cervical decompression. Neurosurgery 1999; 44: 762–769; discussion 769-770

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. CLOWARD RB. The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 1958; 15: 602–617

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. SMITH GW, ROBINSON RA. The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1958; 40-A: 607–624

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Boselie TF, Willems PC, van Mameren H et al. Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2012; 9: CD009173

    Google Scholar 

  57. Faldini C, Chehrassan M, Miscione MT et al. Single-level anterior cervical discectomy and interbody fusion using PEEK anatomical cervical cage and allograft bone. J Orthop Traumatol 2011; 12: 201–205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Bertalanffy H, Eggert HR. Complications of anterior cervical discectomy without fusion in 450 consecutive patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1989; 99: 41–50

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Herkowitz HN. The surgical management of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and myelopathy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989, DOI: 94-108

  60. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA et al. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999; 81: 519–528

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Middleton TH, Al-Mefty O, Harkey LH et al. Syringomyelia after decompressive laminectomy for cervical spondylosis. Surg Neurol 1987; 28: 458–462

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Heller JG, Edwards CC, Murakami H et al. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched cohort analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26: 1330–1336

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Haberland N, Ebmeier K, Sölch O et al. Die operative Therapie degenerativer Erkrankungen der Halswirbelsäule. Nervenheilkunde 2000; 19: 380–387

    Google Scholar 

  64. FRYKHOLM R. Lower cervical nerve roots and their investments. Acta Chir Scand 1951; 101: 457–471

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Powell FC, Hanigan WC, Olivero WC. A risk/benefit analysis of spinal manipulation therapy for relief of lumbar or cervical pain. Neurosurgery 1993; 33: 73–78; discussion 78-79

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zentrums für Neurologie, Asklepios Kliniken Schildautal, Karl-Herold-Str. 1, 38723, Seesen, Deutschland

    Mark Obermann (Direktor)

  2. Institut für Neuroradiologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen, Gießen, Deutschland

    Marc Schlamann (Direktor)

  3. Klinik für Neurochirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Deutschland

    Karsten Wrede

Authors
  1. Mark Obermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marc Schlamann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karsten Wrede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Obermann.

Additional information

Interessenkonflikt

Die Autoren erklären, dass sie sich bei der Erstellung des Beitrags von keinen wirtschaftlichen Interessen haben leiten lassen.

M. Obermann hat finanzielle Unterstützung für Forschungsprojekte und/oder Honorare von Biogen Idec, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Genzyme, Pfizer, Teva und Heel erhalten. Er hat des Weiteren Forschungsstipendien von Allergan, Electrocore, Heel und dem Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) erhalten.

Der Verlag erklärt, dass die inhaltliche Qualität des Beitrags von zwei unabhängigen Gutachtern geprüft wurde. Werbung in dieser Zeitschriftenausgabe hat keinen Bezug zur CME-Fortbildung. Der Verlag garantiert, dass die CME-Fortbildung sowie die CME-Fragen frei sind von werblichen Aussagen und keinerlei Produktempfehlungen enthalten. Dies gilt insbesondere für Präparate, die zur Therapie des dargestellten Krankheitsbildes geeignet sind.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Obermann, M., Schlamann, M. & Wrede, K. Spinale Enge — konservativ oder operativ behandeln?. InFo Neurologie 18, 30–38 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s15005-016-1787-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s15005-016-1787-4

Search

Navigation