Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cervical spine: degenerative conditions

  • Spine (Matthew Cunningham, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Degenerative cervical spine disorders will affect up to two-thirds of the population in their lifetime. While often benign and episodic in nature, cervical disorders may become debilitating resulting in severe pain and possibly neurologic sequelae. Non-operative treatment continues to play an important role in treating these patients, with medications, therapy and interventional pain injections playing increasing roles in treatment. Surgical treatment including anterior and posterior decompression and fusion have been effective treatments of many cervical disorders, but may lead to significant problems including adjacent level disease. Laminotomy/foraminotomy and total disc arthroplasty may avoid some of these problems while providing similar clinical results. Ongoing clinical trials and studies are helping to define the role of these new technologies in treatment of patients with degenerative cervical disorders, although their greater benefit has yet to be proven.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Lawrence JS. Disc degeneration: its frequency in relationship to symptoms. Ann Rheum Dis. 1969;28:121–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cote P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L. The Seskatchewan health and back pain survey: the prevalence of neck pain and related disability in Saskatchewan adults. Spine. 1998;23:1689–98.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Guez M, Hildingsson C, Nilsson M, et al. The prevalence of neck pain: a population based study from Northern Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand. 2002;73:455–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cote P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L. The factors associated with neck pain and its related disability in the Saskatchewan population. Spine. 2000;25:1109–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Salemi G, Savettieri G, Meneghini F, et al. Prevalence of cervical spondylitic radiculopathy: a door-to-door survey in a Sicilian municipality. Acta Neurol Acand. 1996;93:184–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Radhakrishnan K, Litchy WJ, O’Fallon M, Kurland LT. Epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy: a population based study from Rochester, Minnesota, 1976 through 1990. Brain. 1994;117:325–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. DePalma AF, Subin DK. Study of the cervical syndrome. Clin Orthop. 1965;38:135–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rothman RH, Rashbaum RF. Pathogenesis of signs and symptoms of cervical disc degeneration. Instr Course Lect. 1978;27:203–15.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gore DR, Sepic SB, Gardener GM, Murray MP. Neck pain: a long term follow-up of 205 patients. Spine. 1987;12:1–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Epstien JA, Epstein WE: The surgical management of cervical spinal stenosis, spondylosis, and myeloradiculopathy by means of the posterior approach. In Cervical Spine Research Society: The Cervical Spine. Philadelphia, JB Lippincott, 1989.

  11. Clark E, Robinson PK. Cervical Myelopathy: a complication of cervical spondylosis. Brain. 1956;1956:79483.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Boden S, McCown P, Davis D, Wiesel S. Abnormal magnetic resonance scans of the cervical spine in asymptomatic subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:1178–84.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Brower RS: Nonoperative management of Disc and Degenerative Disorders. In The Spine. Edited by Herkowitz H, Garfin S, Eismont F, et al. The Spine. Saunders Elsevier, 2006:814–818.

  14. Dillin W, Uppal GS. Analysis if medications used in the treatment of cervical disk degeneration. Orthop Clin North Am. 1992;23:421–33.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Deyo R, Diehl A, Rosenthal M. How many days of bedrest for acute low back pain? a randomized clinical trial. N Engl J Med. 1976;20:557.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Philadelphia Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines on Selective Rehabilitation Interventions for Neck Pain. Phys Ther 2001, 18:1701–1717.

    Google Scholar 

  17. DiFabio RP. Manipulation of the cervical spine: risks and benefits. Phys Ther. 1999;79:50–65.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Manchikanti L, Cash KA, Pampati V, et al. The effectiveness of fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections in management of chronic cervical disc herniation and radiculitis: preliminary results of a randomized, double-blind, contolled trial. Pain Phys. 2010;13:223–36.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bush K, Hillier S. Outcome of cervical radiulopathy treated with periradiular/epidural corticosteroid injections: a prospective study with independent clinical review. Eur Spine J. 1996;5:319–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ma DJ, Gila LA, Riew KD. Complications of fluoroscopically guided extraforamnal cervical nerve blocks: an analysis of 1036 injections. J Bone Joint Surg. 2005;87-A:1025–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Brouwers PJAM, Kottink EJBL, Dimone MAM, Prevo RL. A cervical anterior spinal artery syndrome after diagnostic blockade fo the right C6 nerve root. Pain. 2001;91:397–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rozin L, Rozin R, Koehler SA, et al. Death during transforaminal epidural steroid root block due to perforations of the left vertebral artery. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2003;24:351–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Manchikanti L, Singh V, Falcon FJ, et al. Comparative Outcomes of a 2-year follow-up of cervical medial branch blocks in management of chronic neck pain: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial. Pain Phys. 2010;13:437–50.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wetzel FT. Chronic benign cervical pain syndromes. Surgical considerations Spine. 1992;17:S367–74.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Jagannathan J, Sherman JH, Szabo T, et al. The posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical disc/osteophyte disease:a single surgeon experience with a minimum of 5 years’ clinical and radiographic follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;10:347–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Clarke MJ, Ecker RD, Krauss WE, et al. Same-segment and adjacent level disease following posterior cervical foraminotomy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6:5–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gala VC, O’Toole JE, Voyadis JM, Fessler RG. Posterior minimally invasive approaches for the cervical spine. Orthop Clin North Am. 2007;38:339–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Harrop JS, Silva MT, Sharan AD, et al. Cervicothoracic radiulopathy treated using posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy. J Neurosurg. 2003;98S:131–6.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zeidman SM, Ducker TB. Posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy for radiculopathy: Review of 172 cases. Neurosurg. 1993;33:356–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Faldini C, Leonetti D, Nanni M, et al. Cervical disc herniation and cervical spondylosis surgically treated by Cloward procedure: a 10-year minimum follow-up study. J Orthop Traumatol. 2010;11:99–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Palma L, Mariottini A, Carangelo B, et al. Favourable long-term clinical outcome after anterior cervical discectomy. a study on a series of 125 patients undergoing surgery a mean of 11 years earlier. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2010;152:1145–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Papadopoulos EC, Huang RC, Girardi FP, et al. Three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plate fixation:radiographic and clinical results. Spine. 2006;31:897–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Acharya S, Kumar S, Srivastava A, Tandon R. Early results of one-level discectomy and fusion with stand-alone cervical cage and bone marrow soaked tricalcium phosphate. Acta Ortho Belg. 2011;77:218–23.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Schloz M, Schnake KJ, Pingel A, et al. A new zero-profile implant for stand-alone anterior cervical interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:666–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Perri B, Cooper M, Lauryssen C, Anand N. Spine J. 2006;7:235–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. •Yaremchuk KL, Toma MS, Somers ML, Peterson E: Acute airway obstruction in cervical spinal procedures with bone morphogenetic proteins. Laryngoscope 2010, 120:1954–7. Use of bone morpogenetic protein in anterior cervical procedures can lead to severe complications including airway obstruction, emergent need for reintubation and death. Its use should be avoided in such procedures.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hillibrand AS, Carlson GC, Palumbo MA, et al. Radiculopahty and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:519–28.

    Google Scholar 

  38. ••Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Mummaneni PV: Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige Disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2010, 13:208–18. Cevical disc arthroplasty patients in randomized-controlled study with anterior cervical fusion achieved a better neurologic outcome and maintained greater lordosis and angular motion at five year follow-up.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Garrido BJ, Taha TA, Sasso RC. Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty a prospective, randomized, controlled single site trial with 48-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010;23:367–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ryu KS, Park CK, Jun SC, Huh HY. Radiological changes of the operated and adjacent segments following cervical arthroplasty after a minimum 24-month follow-up: comparision between the Bryan and Prodisc-C devices. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13:299–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. ••Jawah A, Cavanaugh DA, Kerr EJ, et al.: Total disc arthroplasty does not affect the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical spine: results of 93 patients in three prospective randomized clinical trials. Spine J 2011, 10:1043–8. The rate of adjacent level degenerative disease does not appear to differ in patients undergoing cervical disc arthroplasty when compared to anterior cervical fusion in three prospective randomized studeies.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Geck MJ, Eismont FJ. Surgical options for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Orthop Clin North Am. 2002;33:329–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Buchowski JM, Anderson PA, Sekhon L, Riew KD. Cervical disc arthroplasty for the treatment of myelopathy. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91S:223–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Anderson PA, Matz PG, Groff MW, et al. Laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical degenerative myeolpathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11:150–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hirai T, Okawa A, Arai Y, et al.: Middle-term results of a prospective comparative study of anterior decompression and fusion and posterior decompression with laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical myelopathy. Spine 2011, In press.

  46. Sakaura H, Hosono N, Mukai Y, et al.: Medium-term outcomes of C3-6 laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy: a prospective study with a minimum 5-year follow up. Eur Spine J. 2011;20:928–33.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

Dr. Todd serves as a consultant to Stryker Spine and receives payment for development of educational practices for Stryker Spine.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Southern Orthopedic Specialists, 2731 Napoleon Ave., New Orleans, LA, 70115, USA

    Andrew G. Todd

Authors
  1. Andrew G. Todd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew G. Todd.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Todd, A.G. Cervical spine: degenerative conditions. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 4, 168–174 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-011-9099-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-011-9099-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation