Advertisement

Factors Predictive of Operative Outcome

  • Jerry Ku
  • Jefferson R. WilsonEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The natural history of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is usually one of a slow, stepwise decline, with a minority of patients experiencing periods of quiescence or even subtle clinical improvement with nonoperative treatment over time [1]. Surgical intervention, on average, has convincingly shown to improve neurological outcomes, functional status, and quality of life in DCM patients, regardless of the severity of preoperative functional status [2]. As a result, surgery remains the preferred treatment approach for this patient population. That said, at the individual patient level, postoperative outcomes continue to be variable. As such, surgeons should be aware of the factors which predict operative outcome; such knowledge is essential to aid preoperative communications and to manage patient expectations for recovery in the short and long term.

Keywords

Predictive factors Operative outcomes Degenerative cervical myelopathy DCM Risk factors 

Bibliography

  1. 1.
    Matz PG, Anderson PA, Holly LT, et al. The natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11(2):104–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Kopjar B, 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
  3. 3.
    Tetreault LA, Côté P, Kopjar B, Arnold P, Fehlings MG, Network ANAaICTR. A clinical prediction model to assess surgical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: internal and external validations using the prospective multicenter AOSpine North American and international datasets of 743 patients. Spine J. 2015;15(3):388–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tetreault L, Wilson JR, Kotter MR, et al. Predicting the minimum clinically important difference in patients undergoing surgery for the treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy. Neurosurg Focus. 2016;40(6):E14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morio Y, Teshima R, Nagashima H, Nawata K, Yamasaki D, Nanjo Y. Correlation between operative outcomes of cervical compression myelopathy and MRI of the spinal cord. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(11):1238–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tetreault LA, Karpova A, Fehlings MG. Predictors of outcome in patients with degenerative cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing surgical treatment: results of a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(Suppl 2):236–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holly LT, Matz PG, Anderson PA, et al. Clinical prognostic indicators of surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11(2):112–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tetreault L, Ibrahim A, Côté P, Singh A, Fehlings MG. A systematic review of clinical and surgical predictors of complications following surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(1):77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kusin DJ, Ahn UM, Ahn NU. The effect of smoking on spinal cord healing following surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(18):1391–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alafifi T, Kern R, Fehlings M. Clinical and MRI predictors of outcome after surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neuroimaging. 2007;17(4):315–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arnold PM, Fehlings MG, Kopjar B, et al. Mild diabetes is not a contraindication for surgical decompression in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results of the AOSpine North America multicenter prospective study (CSM). Spine J. 2014;14(1):65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim HJ, Moon SH, Kim HS, et al. Diabetes and smoking as prognostic factors after cervical laminoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(11):1468–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nardone R, Höller Y, Brigo F, et al. The contribution of neurophysiology in the diagnosis and management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a review. Spinal Cord. 2016;54(10):756–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lyu RK, Tang LM, Chen CJ, Chen CM, Chang HS, Wu YR. 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(2):256–61.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karpova A, Arun R, Cadotte DW, et al. Assessment of spinal cord compression by magnetic resonance imaging--can it predict surgical outcomes in degenerative compressive myelopathy? A systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(16):1409–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fukushima T, Ikata T, Taoka Y, Takata S. Magnetic resonance imaging study on spinal cord plasticity in patients with cervical compression myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16(10 Suppl):S534–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mummaneni PV, Kaiser MG, Matz PG, et al. Preoperative patient selection with magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and electroencephalography: does the test predict outcome after cervical surgery? J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11(2):119–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tetreault LA, Dettori JR, Wilson JR, et al. Systematic review of magnetic resonance imaging characteristics that affect treatment decision making and predict clinical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(22 Suppl 1):S89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nouri A, Tetreault L, Zamorano JJ, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting surgical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(3):171–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mizuno J, Nakagawa H, Inoue T, Hashizume Y. Clinicopathological study of “snake-eye appearance” in compressive myelopathy of the cervical spinal cord. J Neurosurg. 2003;99(2 Suppl):162–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fernández de Rota JJ, Meschian S, Fernández de Rota A, Urbano V, Baron M. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy due to chronic compression: the role of signal intensity changes in magnetic resonance images. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6(1):17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karpova A, Arun R, Kalsi-Ryan S, Massicotte EM, Kopjar B, Fehlings MG. Do quantitative magnetic resonance imaging parameters correlate with the clinical presentation and functional outcomes after surgery in cervical spondylotic myelopathy? A prospective multicenter study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(18):1488–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nouri A, Tetreault L, Côté P, Zamorano JJ, Dalzell K, Fehlings MG. Does magnetic resonance imaging improve the predictive performance of a validated clinical prediction rule developed to evaluate surgical outcome in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(14):1092–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tetreault L, Le D, Côté P, Fehlings M. The practical application of clinical prediction rules: a commentary using case examples in surgical patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Global Spine J. 2015;5(6):457–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of NeurosurgerySt. Michael’s Hospital, University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations