Literature DB >> 18946692

Surgical approach to cervical spondylotic myelopathy on the basis of radiological patterns of compression: prospective analysis of 129 cases.

Mihir R Bapat1, Kshitij Chaudhary, Amit Sharma, Vinod Laheri.   

Abstract

This is a prospective analysis of 129 patients operated for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Paucity of prospective data on surgical management of CSM, especially multilevel CSM (MCM), makes surgical decision making difficult. The objectives of the study were (1) to identify radiological patterns of cord compression (POC), and (2) to propose a surgical protocol based on POC and determine its efficacy. Average follow-up period was 2.8 years. Following POCs were identified: POC I: one or two levels of anterior cord compression. POC II: one or two levels of anterior and posterior compression. POC III: three levels of anterior compression. POC III variant: similar to POC III, associated with significant medical morbidity. POC IV: three or more levels of anterior compression in a developmentally narrow canal or with multiple posterior compressions. POC IV variant: similar to POC IV with one or two levels, being more significant than the others. POC V: three or more levels of compression in a kyphotic spine. Anterior decompression and reconstruction was chosen for POC I, II and III. Posterior decompression was chosen in POC III variant because they had more incidences of preoperative morbidity, in spite of being radiologically similar to POC III. Posterior surgery was also performed for POC IV and IV variant. For POC IV variant a targeted anterior decompression was considered after posterior decompression. The difference in the mJOA score before and after surgery for patients in each POC group was statistically significant. Anterior surgery in MCM had better result (mJOA = 15.9) versus posterior surgery (mJOA = 14.96), the difference being statistically significant. No major graft-related complications occurred in multilevel groups. The better surgical outcome of anterior surgery in MCM may make a significant difference in surgical outcome in younger and fitter patients like those of POC III whose expectations out of surgery are more. Judicious choice of anterior or posterior approach should be made after individualizing each case.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18946692      PMCID: PMC2587678          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-008-0792-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  30 in total

1.  Cervical myelopathy due to dynamic compression by the laminectomy membrane: dynamic MR imaging study.

Authors:  T Morimoto; S Okuno; H Nakase; S Kawaguchi; T Sakaki
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  1999-04

2.  The use of freeze-dried allograft bone for anterior cervical fusions.

Authors:  T A Zdeblick; T B Ducker
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  The surgical management of cervical spinal stenosis, spondylosis, and myeloradiculopathy by means of the posterior approach.

Authors:  J A Epstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 4.  Evaluation and management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  M D Law; M Bernhardt; A A White
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  1995

5.  Long-term outcome of laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy due to disc herniation: a comparative study of laminoplasty and anterior spinal fusion.

Authors:  Hironobu Sakaura; Noboru Hosono; Yoshihiro Mukai; Takahiro Ishii; Motoki Iwasaki; Hideki Yoshikawa
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Incidence of dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery: a prospective study.

Authors:  Rajesh Bazaz; Michael J Lee; Jung U Yoo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Incidence and outcome of kyphotic deformity following laminectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  G J Kaptain; N E Simmons; R E Replogle; L Pobereskin
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 5.115

8.  Operations for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. A comparison of the results of anterior and posterior procedures.

Authors:  S Hukuda; T Mochizuki; M Ogata; K Shichikawa; Y Shimomura
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1985-08

9.  Effect of intramedullary signal changes on the surgical outcome of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Ashish Suri; Ravinder Pal Singh Chabbra; Veer Singh Mehta; Sailesh Gaikwad; Ram Mohan Pandey
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.166

10.  Robinson anterior cervical fusion comparison of the standard and modified techniques.

Authors:  S E Emery; M J Bolesta; M A Banks; P K Jones
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  18 in total

1.  Comparative analysis of complications of different reconstructive techniques following anterior decompression for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Yang Liu; Min Qi; Huajiang Chen; Lili Yang; Xinwei Wang; Guodong Shi; Rui Gao; Ce Wang; Wen Yuan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Cervical laminectomy and instrumented lateral mass fusion: techniques, pearls and pitfalls.

Authors:  Michael Mayer; Oliver Meier; Alexander Auffarth; Heiko Koller
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a complex problem where approach is patient dependent.

Authors:  Rob D Dickerman; Ashley S Reynolds; Matthew Bennett
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-11-04       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Measurement of volume-occupying rate of cervical spinal canal and its role in cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Fulong Dong; Cailiang Shen; Shu Jiang; Renjie Zhang; Peiwen Song; Yongqiang Yu; Shiyu Wang; Xiaohu Li; Gang Zhao; Changhai Ding
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-01-06       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Anterior versus posterior surgery for multilevel cervical myelopathy, which one is better? A systematic review.

Authors:  Tao Liu; Wen Xu; Tao Cheng; Hui-Lin Yang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-06-27       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Increased in-hospital complications after primary posterior versus primary anterior cervical fusion.

Authors:  Stavros G Memtsoudis; Alexander Hughes; Yan Ma; Ya Lin Chiu; Andrew A Sama; Federico P Girardi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Relevance of expandable titanium cage for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Fahed Zaïri; Rabih Aboukais; Laurent Thines; Mohamed Allaoui; Richard Assaker
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-05-26       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  The relevance of intramedullary high signal intensity and gadolinium (Gd-DTPA) enhancement to the clinical outcome in cervical compressive myelopathy.

Authors:  Yong Eun Cho; Jun Jae Shin; Keun Su Kim; Dong Kyu Chin; Sung Uk Kuh; Ji Hae Lee; Woo Ho Cho
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-07-22       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  The Impact of Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion on Cervical Sagittal Parameters and Its Correlation With Pain and Functional Outcome of Patients With Neck Pain.

Authors:  Mohsen Rostami; Navid Moghadam; Ibrahim Obeid; Morteza Faghih Jouibari; Mohammad Zarei; Mersad Moosavi; Alireza Khoshnevisan; Farzin Farahbakhsh; Fatemeh Moosaie; Saeid Ehteshami; Alireza Borghei; Milad Shafizadeh; Ramin Kordi; Masoud Khadivi
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-10-08

10.  Agreement on the Level Selection in Laminoplasty among Experienced Surgeons: A Survey-Based Study.

Authors:  Jae Hwan Cho; Kyung-Soo Suk; Jong-Beom Park; Jung-Ki Ha; Chang Ju Hwang; Choon Sung Lee; Dong-Ho Lee
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2016-08-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.