Systematic review of magnetic resonance imaging characteristics that affect treatment decision making and predict clinical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Spine

Volumn 38, Issue 22, 2013, Pages S89-S110

  Tetreault, Lindsay A ^a   Dettori, Joseph R ^b   Wilson, Jefferson R ^a   Singh, Anoushka ^c   Nouri, Aria ^a   Fehlings, Michael G ^c   Brodt, Erika D ^b   Jacobs, W Bradley ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b Spectrum Research Inc   (United States)

^c TORONTO WESTERN HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Anatomic characteristics; Cervical spondylotic myelopathy; Conservative; Cord properties; Deterioration; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prognosis; Surgical outcome; T1 weighted image; T2 weighted image; Treatment

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE OUTCOME; ARTICLE; CERVICAL SPONDYLOTIC MYELOPATHY; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL OUTCOME; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; DETERIORATION; DISEASE DURATION; DISEASE SEVERITY; HUMAN; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; SPINAL CORD COMPRESSION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME; CERVICAL SPINE; DECISION MAKING; METHODOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPINAL CORD DISEASE; SPONDYLOSIS;

CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROGNOSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPINAL CORD DISEASES; SPONDYLOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84901735875     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7eae0     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Young WF. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a common cause of spinal cord dysfunction in older persons. Am Fam Phys 2000; 62: 1064-70, 1073.
2. Tracy JA, Bartleson JD. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurolog 2010; 16: 176-87.
3. Baptiste DC, Fehlings MG. Pathophysiology of cervical myelopathy. Spine J 2006; 6: S190-7. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2006.04.024.
4. Kalsi-Ryan S, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: the clinical phenomenon and the current pathobiology of an increasingly prevalent and devastating disorder [November 30, 2012]. Neuroscientist 2013; 19: 409-21. doi:10.1177/1073858412467377.
5. Yue WM, Tan SB, Tan MH, et al. The Torg-Pavlov ratio in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a comparative study between patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy and a nonspondylotic, nonmyelopathic population. Spine 2001; 26: 1760-4.
6. Nagata K, Kiyonaga K, Ohashi T, et al. Clinical value of magnetic resonance imaging for cervical myelopathy. Spine 1990; 15: 1088-96.
7. Tanaka N, Fujimoto Y, Yasunaga Y, et al. Functional diagnosis using multimodal spinal cord evoked potentials in cervical myelopathy. J Orthop Sci 2005; 10: 3-7.
8. Lo YL. The role of electrophysiology in the diagnosis and management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2007; 36: 886-93.
9. Ebersold MJ, Pare MC, Quast LM. Surgical treatment for cervical spondylitic myelopathy. J Neurosurg 1995; 82: 745-751.
10. King JT Jr, Moossy JJ, Tsevat J, et al. Multimodal assessment after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2005; 2: 526-34.
11. 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: 1238-1245. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200106010-00012.
12. Rajshekhar V, Kumar CSS. Functional outcome after central corpectomy in poor-grade patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy or ossified posterior longitudinal ligament. Neurosurgery 2005; 56: 1279-84. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1227/01. NEU.0000159713.20597.0F.
13. Suri A, Chabbra RPS, Mehta VS, et al. Effect of intramedullary signal changes on the surgical outcome of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J 2003; 3: 33-45.
14. Suzuki A, Misawa H, Simogata M, et al. Recovery process following cervical laminoplasty in patients with cervical compression myelopathy: prospective cohort study. Spine 2009; 34: 2874-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bb0e33.
15. Tanaka J, Seki N, Tokimura F, et al. Operative results of canalexpansive laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy in elderly patients. Spine 1999; 24: 2308-12.
16. Zhang Y-Z, Shen Y, Wang L-F, et al. Magnetic resonance T2 image signal intensity ratio and clinical manifestation predict prognosis after surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 2010; 35: E396-9.
17. Zhang P, Shen Y, Zhang Y-Z, et al. Significance of increased signal intensity on MRI in prognosis after surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Clin Neurosci 2011; 18: 1080-3.
18. Tetreault LA, Karpova A, Fehlings MG. Predictors of outcome in patients with degenerative cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing surgical treatment: results of a systematic review. Eur Spine J 2013. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2658-z.
19. Holly LT, Matz PG, Anderson PA, et al. Clinical prognostic indicators of surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2009; 11: 112-8. doi:10.3171/2009.1.spine08718.
20. Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A: 1-3.
21. Skelly AC, Hashimoto RE, Norvell DC, et al. Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Methodological Approaches to Evaluate the Literature and Establish Best Evidence. Spine 2013;38:S9-18.
22. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328: 1490.
23. West S, King V, Carey TS, et al. Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47 (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center, Contract No. 290-97-0011).
24. Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, et al. AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions-Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 513-23.
25. 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) 2012; 37: 1909-13.
26. 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.
27. Shimomura T, Sumi M, Nishida K, et al. Prognostic factors for deterioration of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy after nonsurgical treatment. Spine 2007; 32: 2474-9.
28. Okada Y, Ikata T, Yamada H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging study on the results of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy. Spine 1993; 18: 2024-9.
29. 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.
30. Shin JJ, Jin BH, Kim KS, et al. Intramedullary high signal intensity and neurological status as prognostic factors in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2010; 152: 1687-94.
31. Setzer M, Vrionis FD, Hermann EJ, et al. Effect of apolipoprotein E genotype on the outcome after anterior cervical decompression and fusion in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2009; 11: 659-66. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/2009.7.SPINE08667.
32. Uchida K, Nakajima H, Sato R, et al. Multivariate analysis of the neurological outcome of surgery for cervical compressive myelopathy. J Orthop Sci 2005; 10: 564-73.
33. Park Y-S, 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 238-9.
34. 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: 233-38. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2005.04.011.
35. Yamazaki T, Yanaka K, Sato H, et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical results and factors affecting outcome with special reference to age differences. Neurosurgery 2003; 52: 122-6.
36. 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: 455-62. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199903010-00009.
37. Nakashima H, Yukawa Y, Ito K, et al. Prediction of lower limb functional recovery after laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy: focusing on the 10-s step test. Eur Spine J 2012; 21: 1389-95. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2241-z.
38. Vedantam A, Jonathan A, Rajshekhar V. Association of magnetic resonance imaging signal changes and outcome prediction after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 15: 660-66. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/2011.8.SPINE11452.
39. Kim HJ, Moon SH, Kim HS, et al. Diabetes and smoking as prognostic factors after cervical laminoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90: 1468-72. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.90B11.20632.
40. Suda K, Abumi K, Ito M, et al. Local kyphosis reduces surgical outcomes of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 2003; 28: 1258-62.
41. Wang L-F, Zhang Y-Z, Shen Y, et al. Using the T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging signal intensity ratio and clinical manifestations to assess the prognosis of patients with cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Neurosurg Spine 2010; 13: 319-23. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/2010.3.SPINE 09887.
42. Zhang L, Zeitoun D, Rangel A, et al. Preoperative evaluation of the cervical spondylotic myelopathy with flexion-extension magnetic resonance imaging: about a prospective study of fifty patients. Spine 2011; 36: E1134-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f822c7.
43. Benzel EC, Lancon J, Kesterson L, et al. Cervical laminectomy and dentate ligament section for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord 1991; 4: 286-295.
44. Harrop JS, Naroji S, Maltenfort M, et al. Cervical myelopathy: a clinical and radiographic evaluation and correlation to cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 2010; 35: 620-4. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b723af.
45. Kerkovsky M, Bednarik J, Dusek L, et al. Magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging in patients with cervical spondylotic spinal cord compression: correlations between clinical and electrophysiological findings. Spine 2012; 37: 48-56. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820e6c35.
46. 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.
47. Yagi M, Ninomiya K, Kihara M, et al. Long-term surgical outcome and risk factors in patients with cervical myelopathy and a change in signal intensity of intramedullary spinal cord on magnetic resonance imaging: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2010; 12: 59-65. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/2009.5.SPINE 08940.
48. Budzik J-F, Balbi V, Le Thuc V, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging and fibre tracking in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 426-33. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1927-z.
49. Kara B, Celik A, Karadereler S, et al. The role of DTI in early detection of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a preliminary study with 3-T MRI. Neuroradiology 2011; 53: 609-16. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00234-011-0844-4.
50. Lee JW, Kim JH, Park JB, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging and fiber tractography in cervical compressive myelopathy: preliminary results. Skeletal Radiol 2011; 40: 1543-51. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00256-011-1161-z.
51. Demir A, Ries M, Moonen CTW, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging with apparent diffusion coefficient and apparent diffusion tensor maps in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Radiology 2003; 229: 37-43.
52. Jones JG, Cen SY, Lebel RM, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging correlates with the clinical assessment of disease severity in cervical spondylotic myelopathy and predicts outcome following surgery. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013; 34: 471-78. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3199.
53. Nakamura M, Fujiyoshi K, Tsuji O, et al. Clinical significance of diffusion tensor tractography as a predictor of functional recovery after laminoplasty in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2012; 17: 147-52. doi:10.3171/2012.5.spine1196.