Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Measurement of long-term outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated surgically

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The Myelopathy Disability Index and the Neck Disability Index are widely used to assess outcome in cervical spine surgery. Short Form (SF) 36 is a generic measure of health which can be used to measure health gains across a wide variety of conditions. The aim of the current study is to assess long-term outcomes using these measures in a cohort of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

Methods

Cohort study with prospective data collection. Patients with CSM being offered decompressive surgery were asked to complete a set of generic and condition-specific outcome measures. This was repeated post-operatively at 3, 12, 24 and 60 months. SF-36 was used as a generic outcome measure and the Myelopathy Index, Neck Disability Score and visual analogue scores for arm, neck and hand pain, paraesthesia and dysthaesia were used as condition-specific outcome measures.

Results

Significant improvements in all outcome measures were seen in 70 % of the cohort. For SF-36, pre-operative scores were lower than age-matched controls in all domains and significant improvements were seen 3 months following surgery. This improvement in outcome was maintained at 5 years follow-up in approximately two-thirds of those with initial improvement.

Conclusion

We have used generic and condition-specific outcome measures of health and shown that in patients with CSM treated surgically, up to 70 % can expect improvement in their quality of life. These outcome measures are easy to collect and provide objective evidence of changes in quality of life and disability and can help quantify the potential health gains that can be achieved.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. King JT Jr, Moossy JJ, Tsevat J, Roberts MS (2005) Multimodal assessment after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2(5):526–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Geigle R, Jones SB (1990) Outcomes measurement: a report from the front. Inquiry 27(1):7–13

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Jankowitz BT, Gerszten PC (2006) Decompression for cervical myelopathy. Spine J 6(6 Suppl):317S–322S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Latimer M, Haden N, Seeley HM, Laing RJ (2002) Measurement of outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated surgically. Br J Neurosurg 16(6):545–549

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ebersold MJ, Pare MC, Quast LM (1995) Surgical treatment for cervical spondylitic myelopathy. J Neurosurg 82(5):745–751

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Casey AT, Bland JM, Crockard HA (1996) Development of a functional scoring system for rheumatoid arthritis patients with cervical myelopathy. Ann Rheum Dis 55(12):901–906

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Singh A, Crockard HA (2001) Comparison of seven different scales used to quantify severity of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and post-operative improvement. J Outcome Meas 5(1):798–818

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. King JT Jr, McGinnis KA, Roberts MS (2003) Quality of life assessment with the medical outcomes study Short Form-36 among patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurosurg 52(1):113–120 (discussion 121)

    Google Scholar 

  9. King JT Jr, Roberts MS (2002) Validity and reliability of the Short Form-36 in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg 97(2 Suppl):180–185

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. King JT Jr, Tsevat J, Moossy JJ, Roberts MS (2004) Preference-based quality of life measurement in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(11):1271–1280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rajshekhar V, Muliyil J (2007) Patient perceived outcome after central corpectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Surg Neurol 68(2):185–190 (discussion 190–181)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Stoffman MR, Roberts MS, King JT Jr (2005) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy, depression, and anxiety: a cohort analysis of 89 patients. Neurosurg 57(2):307–313 (discussion 307–313)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Thakar S, Christopher S, Rajshekhar V (2009) Quality of life assessment after central corpectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: comparative evaluation of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-Brief. J Neurosurg Spine 11(4):402–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP (1983) The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 67(6):361–370

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Y. Z. Al-Tamimi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Al-Tamimi, Y.Z., Guilfoyle, M., Seeley, H. et al. Measurement of long-term outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated surgically. Eur Spine J 22, 2552–2557 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2965-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2965-4

Keywords

Navigation