Natural course and prognostic factors in patients with mild cervical spondylotic myelopathy with increased signal intensity on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging

Spine

Volumn 37, Issue 22, 2012, Pages 1909-1913

  Oshima, Yasushi ^a   Seichi, Atsushi ^b   Takeshita, Katsushi ^a   Chikuda, Hirotaka ^a   Ono, Takashi ^a   Baba, Satoshi ^a   Morii, Jiro ^a   Oka, Hiroyuki ^a   Kawaguchi, Hiroshi ^a   Nakamura, Kozo ^a   Tanaka, Sakae ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^b JICHI MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

cervical myelopathy; intramedullary increased signal intensity; natural course; prognostic factor

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CERVICAL SPONDYLOTIC MYELOPATHY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DECOMPRESSION SURGERY; DETERIORATION; DISEASE COURSE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MOTION; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; RANGE OF MOTION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SPINAL CORD INJURY;

ADULT; AGED; DECOMPRESSION, SURGICAL; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROGNOSIS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPINAL CORD DISEASES; SPONDYLOSIS;

EID: 84867748284     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318259a65b     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Al-Mefty O, Harkey LH, Middleton TH, et al. Myelopathic cervical spondylotic lesions demonstrated by magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosurg 1988; 68: 217-22. (Pubitemid 18057727)
2. Bednarik J, Kadanka Z, Dusek L, et al. Presymptomatic spondylotic cervical myelopathy: An updated predictive model. Eur Spine J 2008; 17: 421-31.
3. Takahashi M, Yamashita Y, Sakamoto Y, et al. Chronic cervical cord compression: Clinical significance of increased signal intensity on MR images. Radiology 1989; 173: 219-24. (Pubitemid 19242436)
4. Rhee JM, Hefl in JA, Hamasaki T, et al. Prevalence of physical signs in cervical myelopathy: A prospective, controlled study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34: 890-5.
5. Yukawa Y, Kato F, Ito K, et al. Postoperative changes in spinal cord signal intensity in patients with cervical compression myelopathy: Comparison between preoperative and postoperative magnetic resonance images. J Neurosurg Spine 2008; 8: 524-8. (Pubitemid 351830237)
6. Mastronardi L, Elsawaf A, Roperto R, et al. Prognostic relevance of the postoperative evolution of intramedullary spinal cord changes in signal intensity on magnetic resonance imaging after anterior decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 7: 615-22. (Pubitemid 350291545)
7. Shimomura T, Sumi M, Nishida K, et al. Prognostic factors for deterioration of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy after nonsurgical treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32: 2474-9. (Pubitemid 350303695)
8. 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. (Pubitemid 33634225)
9. Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednarik J, et al. Predictive factors for spondylotic cervical myelopathy treated conservatively or surgically. Eur J Neurol 2005; 12: 55-63.
10. Chikuda H, Seichi A, Takeshita K, et al. Correlation between pyramidal signs and the severity of cervical myelopathy. Eur Spine J 2010; 19: 1684-9.
11. Albert TJ, Vacarro A. Postlaminectomy kyphosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998; 23: 2738-45. (Pubitemid 29013986)
12. Uchida K, Nakajima H, Sato R, et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy associated with kyphosis or sagittal sigmoid alignment: Outcome after anterior or posterior decompression. J Neurosurg Spine 2009; 11: 521-8.