Evaluation of conservative treatment and timing of surgical intervention for mild forms of cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 852-856

  Kong, Ling De ^a   Meng, Ling Chen ^a   Wang, Lin Feng ^a   Shen, Yong ^a   Wang, Pan ^a   Shang, Zi Kun ^a  

^a HEBEI MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Cervical myelopathy; Conservative treatment; Prognosis; Surgical treatment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLADDER FUNCTION; CEREBROSPINAL FLUID; CERVICAL MYELOPATHY; CERVICAL SPONDYLOTIC MYELOPATHY; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; DETERIORATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; JAPANESE ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATION SCORE; LAMINOPLASTY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OPERATION DURATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; SPINAL CORD COMPRESSION; SPINAL CORD INJURY;

EID: 84880468190     PISSN: 17920981     EISSN: 17921015     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3892/etm.2013.1224     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Holly LT, Matz PG, Anderson PA, et al: Clinical prognostic indicators of surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 11: 112-118, 2009.
2. Koyanagi T, Hirabayashi K, Satomi K, Toyama Y and Fujimura Y: Predictability of operative results of cervical compression myelopathy based on preoperative computed tomographic myelography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18: 1958-1963, 1993.
3. Zhang P, Shen Y, Zhang YZ, Ding WY and Wang LF: Signifcance of increased signal intensity on MRI in prognosis after surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Clin Neurosci 18: 1080-1083, 2011.
4. Acharya S, Srivastava A, Virmani S and Tandon R: Resolution of physical signs and recovery in severe cervical spondylotic myelopathy after cervical laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35: 1083-1087, 2010.
5. Cheung WY, Arvinte D, Wong Y W, Luk KD and Cheung KM: Neurological recovery after surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy - a prospective study. Int Orthop 32: 273-278, 2008.
6. Gok B, Sciubba DM, McLoughlin GS, et al: Surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy with anterior compression: a review of 67 cases. J Neurosurg Spine 9: 152-157, 2008.
7. Oshima Y, Seichi A, Takeshita K, et al: Natural course and prognostic factors in patients with mild cervical spondylotic myelopathy with increased signal intensity on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37: 1909-1913, 2012.
8. Sumi M, Miyamoto H, Suzuki T, Kaneyama S, Kanatani T and Uno K: Prospective cohort study of mild cervical spondylotic myelopathy without surgical treatment. J Neurosurg Spine 16: 8-14, 2012.
9. Fouyas I P, Statham PF and Sandercock PA: Cochrane review on the role of surgery in cervical spondylotic radiculomyelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27: 736-747, 2002.
10. Kadaňka Z, Bednařík J, Novotný O, Urbánek I and Dušek L: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: conservative versus surgical treatment after 10 years. Eur Spine J 20: 1533-1538, 2011.
11. Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednaník J, et al: Approaches to spon-dylotic cervical myelopathy: conservative versus surgical results in a 3-year follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27: 2205-2211, 2002.
12. Angevine PD, Zivin JG and McCormick PC: Cost-effectiveness of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical spondylosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30: 1989-1997, 2005.
13. Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG, et al: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32: 2310-2317, 2007.
14. 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) 32: 2474-2479, 2007.
15. Yoshimatsu H, Nagata K, Goto H, et al: Conservative treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. prediction of treatment effects by multivariate analysis. Spine J 1: 269-273, 2001.
16. Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednarík J, et al: Predictive factors for mild forms of spondylotic cervical myelopathy treated conservatively or surgically. Eur J Neurol 12: 16-24, 2005.
17. Borden JN: Good Samaritan cervical traction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 113: 162-163, 1975.
18. Kawasaki M, Tani T, Ushida T and Ishida K: Anterolisthesis and retrolisthesis of the cervical spine in cervical spondylotic myelopathy in the elderly. J Orthop Sci 12: 207-213, 2007.
19. Yamazaki T, Yanaka K, Sato H, Uemura K, Tsukada A and Nose T: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical results and factors affecting outcome with special reference to age differences. Neurosurgery 52: 122-126, 2003.
20. Naderi S, Ozgen S, Pamir MN, Ozek MM and Erzen C: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical results and factors affecting prognosis. Neurosurgery 43: 43-50, 1998.
21. Suri A, Chabbra R.P, Mehta VS, Gaikwad S and Pandey RM: Effect of intramedullary signal changes on the surgical outcome of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J 3: 33-45, 2003.
22. Fujiwara K, Yonenobu K, Ebara S, Yamashita K and Ono K: The prognosis of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy. An analysis of the factors involved. J Bone Joint Surg Br 71: 393-398, 1989.
23. Murone I: The importance of the sagittal diameters of the cervical spinal canal in relation to spondylosis and myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 56: 30-36, 1974.
24. Edwards WC and LaRocca H: The developmental segmental sagittal diameter of the cervical spinal canal in patients with cervical spondylosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 8: 20-27, 1983.
25. Pavlov H, Torg JS, Robie B and Jahre C: Cervical spinal stenosis: determination with vertebral body ratio method. Radiology 164: 771-775, 1987.