Literature DB >> 21519928

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: conservative versus surgical treatment after 10 years.

Zdeněk Kadaňka1, Josef Bednařík, Oldřich Novotný, Igor Urbánek, Ladislav Dušek.   

Abstract

It is not known whether the results of decompressive surgery to treat the mild and moderate forms of spondylotic cervical myelopathy (CSM) are any better than those of a conservative approach. A 10-year prospective randomised study was performed. The objective of the study was to compare conservative and operative treatments of mild and moderate, non-progressive, or slowly progressive, forms of CSM. Sixty-four patients were randomised into two groups of 32. Group A was treated conservatively while group B was treated surgically. The clinical outcome was evaluated by modified JOA score, timed 10-m walk, score of daily activities recorded by video and evaluated by two observers blinded to the type of therapy, and by subjective assessment by the patients themselves. Seventeen patents died of natural, unrelated causes, during the follow-up. A total of 25 patients in the conservatively and 22 in the surgically treated group were used for the final evaluation. There was no statistically significant difference between both groups in mJOA score, in subjective evaluation by the patients themselves and in evaluation of video-recordings of daily living activities by two observers blinded to treatment mode. There was neither any difference found in the percentage of patients losing the ability to walk nor in the time taken to cover the 10-m track from a standing start. Comparison of conservative and surgical treatment in mild and moderate forms of CSM in a 10-year follow-up has not shown, on average, a significant difference in results. In both groups, patients get better and worse. According to the power analysis it is necessary admit that these results possess the low ability to answer definitely the question which treatment is better for the patients with a mild and moderate non-progressive CSM because of the low number of patients for the final evaluation and for clinically negligible differences between two compared arms. These findings can serve as a worthy odds-on hypothesis which needs the confirmation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21519928      PMCID: PMC3175900          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-1811-9

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


  26 in total

1.  Conservative treatment versus surgery in spondylotic cervical myelopathy: a prospective randomised study.

Authors:  Z Kadanka; J Bednarík; S Vohánka; O Vlach; L Stejskal; R Chaloupka; D Filipovicová; D Surelová; B Adamová; O Novotný; M Nemec; V Smrcka; I Urbánek
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Approaches to spondylotic cervical myelopathy: conservative versus surgical results in a 3-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Zdenek Kadanka; Miroslav Mares; Josef Bednaník; Vladimír Smrcka; Martin Krbec; Lubor Stejskal; Richard Chaloupka; Dagmar Surelová; Oldrich Novotný; Igor Urbánek; Ladislav Dusek
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  [Anterior decompression surgery of aged patients with cervical myelopathy].

Authors:  O Hirai; A Kondo; I Aoyama; K Nin
Journal:  No Shinkei Geka       Date:  1991-11

Review 4.  Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: natural history.

Authors:  H LaRocca
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis.

Authors:  S Nurick
Journal:  Brain       Date:  1972       Impact factor: 13.501

Review 6.  Neurosurgery for cervical spondylosis.

Authors:  D Uttley; P Monro
Journal:  Br J Hosp Med       Date:  1989-07

7.  The surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  L Symon; P Lavender
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  1967-02       Impact factor: 9.910

8.  A comparative study of the treatment of cervical spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Experience with 50 cases treated by means of extensive laminectomy, foraminotomy, and excision of osteophytes during the past 10 years.

Authors:  J A Epstein; Y Janin; R Carras; L S Lavine
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 2.216

9.  Use of walking data in assessing operative results for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: long-term follow-up and comparison with controls.

Authors:  Anoushka Singh; David Choi; Alan Crockard
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-05-20       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Neurologic complications of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy.

Authors:  K Yonenobu; N Hosono; M Iwasaki; M Asano; K Ono
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  38 in total

1.  Comparison of inter- and intra-observer reliability among the three classification systems for cervical spinal canal stenosis.

Authors:  Sangbong Ko; Wonkee Choi; Seungbum Chae
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-13       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Cervical radiculopathy combined with cervical myelopathy: prevalence and characteristics.

Authors:  Byung-Wan Choi; Sung-Soo Kim; Dong-Hyun Lee; Ji-Wan Kim
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2017-05-15

3.  Early neurological recovery course after surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective study with 2-year follow-up using three different functional assessment tests.

Authors:  Hugues Pascal Moussellard; Alain Meyer; David Biot; Frédéric Khiami; Elhadi Sariali
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Cox decompression manipulation and guided rehabilitation of a patient with a post surgical c6-c7 fusion with spondylotic myelopathy and concurrent L5-s1 radiculopathy.

Authors:  George C Joachim
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2014-06

Review 5.  Considerations for prophylactic surgery in asymptomatic severe cervical stenosis: review article.

Authors:  Abdel Majid Sheikh Taha; Jennifer Shue; Darren Lebl; Federico Girardi
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2015-01-27

6.  Posterior surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: review article.

Authors:  Paul D Kiely; John C Quinn; Jerry Y Du; Darren R Lebl
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2015-02-10

7.  Reduction in range of cervical motion on serial long-term follow-up in patients undergoing oblique corpectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Mazda K Turel; Sauradeep Sarkar; Krishna Prabhu; Roy T Daniel; K S Jacob; Ari G Chacko
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Risk factors for poor outcome of surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  J T Zhang; L F Wang; S Wang; J Li; Y Shen
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2016-05-03       Impact factor: 2.772

9.  Effectiveness of Riluzole as a pharmacotherapeutic treatment option for early cervical myelopathy: a double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  S Rajasekaran; Siddharth N Aiyer; Ajoy Prasad Shetty; Rishi Mugesh Kanna; Anupama Maheswaran; Janardhan Yerram Shetty
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  Surgery versus conservative care for neck pain: a systematic review.

Authors:  Marienke van Middelkoop; Sidney M Rubinstein; Raymond Ostelo; Maurits W van Tulder; Wilco Peul; Bart W Koes; Arianne P Verhagen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-10-29       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.