Advertisement

Timing of Operative Intervention

  • Alexander M. Tucker
  • Tianyi Niu
  • Daniel T. Nagasawa
  • Langston T. HollyEmail author
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Cervical Myelopathy Timing Decompression Spinal Cord Compression Surgical 

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boakye M, et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: complications and outcomes after spinal fusion. Neurosurgery. 2008;62:455–61; discussion 461–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boogaarts HD, Ronald HM. Prevalence of cervical Spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2013;24(S2):139–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klineberg E. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a review of the evidence. Orthop Clin North Am. 2010;41(2):193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: epidemiology, genetics, and pathogenesis. Spine. 2015;40(12):E675–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ono K, Ota H, Tada K, Yamamoto T. Cervical myelopathy secondary to multiple Spondylotic protrusions. Spine. 1977;2(2):109–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC. Benzel’s spine surgery: techniques, complication avoidance, and management. 2017.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stevens JA, Olson S. Reducing falls and resulting hip fractures among older women. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2000;49:3–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander M. Tucker
    • 1
  • Tianyi Niu
    • 1
  • Daniel T. Nagasawa
    • 1
  • Langston T. Holly
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of California-Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations