Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging is associated with baseline neurological status and can predict postoperative recovery in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Spine

Volumn 38, Issue 14, 2013, Pages 1170-1176

  Arvin, Babak ^a   Kalsi Ryan, Sukhvinder ^b,c,d   Mercier, David ^b   Furlan, Julio C ^d,e,f   Massicotte, Eric M ^b,c   Fehlings, Michael G ^b,c  

^a QUEEN S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b TORONTO WESTERN HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d TORONTO REHABILITATION INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cervical myelopathy; Cervical spondylotic myelopathy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Mri; Prognosis

Indexed keywords

30 METER WALK CADENCE; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BERG BALANCE SCALE; CERVICAL SPONDYLOTIC MYELOPATHY; CONVALESCENCE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GRIP STRENGTH; HUMAN; JAPANESE ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATION SCORE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NECK DISABILITY INDEX; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NURICK (GRADE); OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SCORING SYSTEM; SHORT FORM 36; SPINAL CORD SURGERY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROGNOSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SPINAL CORD DISEASES; SPONDYLOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84880077943     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828e23a8     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Adams CB, Logue V. Studies in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. II. The movement and contour of the spine in relation to the neural complications of cervical spondylosis. Brain 1971; 94 : 568- 86.
2. Young WF. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a common cause of spinal cord dysfunction in older persons. Am Fam Physician 2000; 62 : 1064- 70, 73.
3. Fehlings MG, Arvin B. Surgical management of cervical degenerative disease: the evidence related to indications, impact, and outcome. J Neurosurg Spine 2009; 11 : 97- 100.
4. Fernandez de Rota JJ, Meschian S, Fernandez de Rota A, et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy due to chronic compression: the role of signal intensity changes in magnetic resonance images. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 6 : 17- 22. (Pubitemid 47066035)
5. Morio Y, Teshima R, Nagashima H, et al. Correlation between operative outcomes of cervical compression myelopathy and MRI of the spinal cord. Spine 2001; 26 : 1238- 45. (Pubitemid 32520496)
6. Houten JK, Cooper PR. Laminectomy and posterior cervical plating for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: effects on cervicalalignment, spinal cord compression, and neurological outcome. Neurosurgery 2003; 52 : 1081- 7; discussion 7- 8.
7. Chibbaro S, Benvenuti L, Carnesecchi S, et al. Anterior cervical corpectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: experience and surgical results in a series of 70 consecutive patients. J Clin Neurosci 2006; 13 : 233- 8. (Pubitemid 43294480)
8. Wada E, Yonenobu K, Suzuki S, et al. Can intramedullary signal change on magnetic resonance imaging predict surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy ? Spine 1999; 24 : 455- 61; discussion 62.
9. Yone K, Sakou T, Yanase M, et al. Preoperative and postoperative magnetic resonance image evaluations of the spinal cord in cervical myelopathy. Spine 1992; 17 :S 388- 92.
10. Papadopoulos CA, Katonis P, Papagelopoulos PJ, et al. Surgical decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: correlation between operative outcomes and MRI of the spinal cord. Orthopedics 2004; 27 : 1087- 91.
11. Park YS, Nakase H, Kawaguchi S, et al. Predictors of outcome of surgery for cervical compressive myelopathy: retrospective analysis and prospective study. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2006; 46 : 231- 8; discussion 8- 9. (Pubitemid 43793487)
12. Matsuda Y, Miyazaki K, Tada K, et al. Increased MR signal intensity due to cervical myelopathy. Analysis of 29 surgical cases. J Neurosurg 1991; 74 : 887- 92.
13. Chen CJ, Lyu RK, Lee ST, et al. Intramedullary high signal intensity on T2-weighted MR images in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: prediction of prognosis with type of intensity. Radiology 2001; 221 : 789- 94.
14. Matsuyama Y, Kawakami N, Yanase M, et al. Cervical myelopathy due to OPLL: clinicalevaluation by MRI and intraoperative spinal sonography. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004; 17 : 401- 4. (Pubitemid 43020804)
15. Mizuno J, Nakagawa H, Inoue T, et al. Clinicopathological study of "snake-eye appearance" in compressive myelopathy of the cervical spinal cord. J Neurosurg 2003; 99 : 162- 8.
16. Alafifi T, Kern R, Fehlings M. Clinical and MRI predictors of outcome after surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neuroimaging 2007; 17 : 315- 22. (Pubitemid 47481066)
17. Singh A, Crockard HA, Platts A, et al. Clinical and radiological correlates of severity and surgery-related outcome in cervical spondylosis. J Neurosurg 2001; 94 : 189- 98. (Pubitemid 32786044)
18. Bucciero A, Vizioli L, Tedeschi G. Cord diameters and their significance in prognostication and decisions about management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Sci 1993; 37 : 223- 8. (Pubitemid 24199307)
19. Fujiwara K, Yonenobu K, Ebara S, et al. The prognosis of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy. An analysis of the factors involved. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1989; 71 : 393- 8.
20. Kasai Y, Uchida A. New evaluation method using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2001; 121 : 508- 10. (Pubitemid 32894746)
21. Nagata K, Ohashi T, Abe J, et al. Cervical myelopathy in elderly patients: clinical results and MRI findings before and after decompression surgery. Spinal Cord 1996; 34 : 220- 6. (Pubitemid 26186912)
22. Chiles BW 3rd, Leonard MA, Choudhri HF, et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: patterns of neurological deficit and recovery after anterior cervical decompression. Neurosurgery 1999; 44 : 762- 9; discussion 9- 70.
23. Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, et al. Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine 1981; 6 : 354- 64.
24. Nurick S. The pathogenesis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Acta Neurol Belg 1976; 76 : 274- 5.
25. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30 : 473- 83.
26. Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991; 14 : 409- 15.
27. 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 : 119- 29.
28. Arvin B, Kalsi-Ryan S, Karpova A, et al. Post-operative Magnetic Resonance Imaging can predict neurological recovery following surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: A prospective study with blinded assessments. Neurosurgery 2011;69:362-8.
29. Yukawa Y, Kato F, Yoshihara H, et al. MR T2 image classification in cervical compression myelopathy: predictor of surgical outcomes. Spine 2007; 32 : 1675- 8; discussion 9. (Pubitemid 47051853)