Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Timing of Operative Intervention

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy and Radiculopathy

  • 1351 Accesses

Abstract

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is caused by damage to the spinal cord from progressive, age-related degenerative narrowing of the spinal canal. Regardless of the degree of narrowing, signs and symptoms can vary widely for each individual patient with CSM. Currently there are no universally accepted guidelines regarding the timing of surgery for CSM. Surgical decision-making for CSM requires complex integration of each patient’s symptoms, physical exam findings, radiographic findings, patient lifestyle, and overall health. These characteristics can then be used to stratify patients with CSM into asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe disease categories. This chapter aims to provide evidence-based recommendations to determine the need and timing of surgical decompression in patients with CSM based upon disease severity category.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bednarik J, Kadanka Z, Dusek L, Novotny O, Surelova D, Urbanek I, et al. Presymptomatic spondylotic cervical cord compression. Spine. 2004;29:2260–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Boakye M, et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: complications and outcomes after spinal fusion. Neurosurgery. 2008;62:455–61; discussion 461–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Boogaarts HD, Ronald HM. Prevalence of cervical Spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2013;24(S2):139–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chang V, Ellingson BM, Salamon N, Holly LT. The risk of acute spinal cord injury after minor trauma in patients with preexisting cervical stenosis. Neurosurgery. 2015;77(4):561–5; discussion 565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dolan RT, Butler JS, O’Byrne JM, Poynton AR. Mechanical and cellular processes driving cervical myelopathy. World J Orthop. 2016;7(1):20–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ellingson BM, Salamon N, Grinstead JW, Holly LT. Diffusion tensor imaging predicts functional impairment in mild-to-moderate cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J. 2014;14(11):2589–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Kopjar B, Yoon ST, Arnold PM, Massicotte EM, Vaccaro AR, et al. Efficacy and safety of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results of the AOSpine North America Prospective Multi-Center Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(18):1651–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fujiwara K, Yonenobu K, Ebara S, Yamashita K, Ono K. The prognosis of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy. An analysis of the factors involved. J Bone Joint Surg. 1989;71(3):393–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hu Y, Ding Y, Ruan D, Wong YW, Cheung KMC, Luk KDK. Prognostic value of somatosensory-evoked potentials in the surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2008;33(10):E305–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednanik J, Smrcka V, Krbec M, Stejskal L, et al. Approaches to spondylotic cervical myelopathy: conservative versus surgical results in a 3-year follow-up study. Spine. 2002;27:2205–10; discussion 2210–2201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kadanka Z, Bednarik J, Novotny O, et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: conservative versus surgical treatment after 10 years. Eur Spine J. 2011;20:1533–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Karadimas SK, Mark Erwin W, Ely CG, Dettori JR, Fehlings MG. Pathophysiology and natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2013;38(22 Suppl 1):S21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Klineberg E. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a review of the evidence. Orthop Clin North Am. 2010;41(2):193–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kopjar B, Tetreault L, Kalsi-Ryan S, Fehlings M. Psychometric properties of the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2015;40(1):E23–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Matsumoto M, Chiba K, Ishikawa M, Maruiwa H, Fujimura Y, Toyama Y. Relationships between outcomes of conservative treatment and magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with mild cervical myelopathy caused by soft disc herniations. Spine. 2001;26(14):1592–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Matz PG, Anderson PA, Kaiser MG, Holly LT, Groff MW, Heary RF, Mummaneni PV, et al. Introduction and methodology: guidelines for the surgical management of cervical degenerative disease. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11(2):101–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: epidemiology, genetics, and pathogenesis. Spine. 2015;40(12):E675–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ono K, Ota H, Tada K, Yamamoto T. Cervical myelopathy secondary to multiple Spondylotic protrusions. Spine. 1977;2(2):109–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ramanauskas WL, Wilner HI, Metes JJ, Lazo A, Kelly JK. MR imaging of compressive myelomalacia. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1989;13(3):399–404.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rhee JM, Shamji MF, Erwin WM, et al. Nonoperative management of cervical myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:S55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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;25:670–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC. Benzel’s spine surgery: techniques, complication avoidance, and management. 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Stevens JA, Olson S. Reducing falls and resulting hip fractures among older women. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2000;49:3–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tetreault LA, Kopjar B, Vaccaro A, Yoon ST, Arnold PM, Massicotte EM, Fehlings MG. A clinical prediction model to determine outcomes in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing surgical treatment: data from the prospective, Multi-Center AOSpine North America Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(18):1659–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wilson JR, Barry S, Fischer DJ, Skelly AC, Arnold PM, Daniel Riew K, Shaffrey CI, Traynelis VC, Fehlings MG. Frequency, timing, and predictors of neurological dysfunction in the nonmyelopathic patient with cervical spinal cord compression, canal stenosis, and/or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine. 2013;38:S37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yoshimatsu H, Nagata K, Goto H, et al. Conservative treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Prediction of treatment effects by multivariate analysis. Spine J. 2001;1:269–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Alexander M. Tucker, Tianyi Niu, Daniel T. Nagasawa & Langston T. Holly

Authors
  1. Alexander M. Tucker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tianyi Niu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel T. Nagasawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Langston T. Holly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Langston T. Holly .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Michael G. Kaiser

  2. Atlanta Brain and Spine Care, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Regis W. Haid

  3. Duke University Health System, Durham, NC, USA

    Christopher I. Shaffrey

  4. Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Michael G. Fehlings

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tucker, A.M., Niu, T., Nagasawa, D.T., Holly, L.T. (2019). Timing of Operative Intervention. In: Kaiser, M., Haid, R., Shaffrey, C., Fehlings, M. (eds) Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy and Radiculopathy . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97952-6_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97952-6_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97951-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97952-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation