Literature DB >> 27137121

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

J T Zhang1, L F Wang1, S Wang1, J Li1, Y Shen1.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective study.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to characterise risk factors for poor surgical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).
METHODS: The prospective study included 110 consecutive patients who underwent surgical treatment for CSM. Surgical outcomes were evaluated according to the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score. JOA recovery rate <50% was defined as poor surgical outcome. Relationship between outcome and various clinical and imaging predictors was examined. By multivariate logistic regression analysis, we identified risk factors associated with poor outcome. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted to acquire cutoff values for the continuous variables found to be independently associated with poor outcome.
RESULTS: Forty-two patients (38.2%) had a recovery rate of <50%. Logistic regression, with poor outcome as dependent variable, showed independent risks associated with increased age (odds ratio (ORs)=1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.15, P=0.021), symptom duration (OR=4.01, 95% CI=1.95-8.23, P=0.000) and signal intensity ratio (SIR, OR=4.24, 95% CI=1.61-11.20, P=0.003). The cutoffs with the best compromise between sensitivity and specificity were set at 63.1 years of age, 9 months of symptom duration and 1.455 for SIR. The presence of ⩾2 out of three factors (age ⩾63.1 years, symptom duration ⩾9 months and SIR ⩾1.455) gave an overall OR of 33.15 (95% CI=4.11-267.37, P=0.001).
CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that advanced age, long-term CSM symptoms and high preoperative SIR are risk factors for poor outcome of surgery in patients with CSM.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27137121     DOI: 10.1038/sc.2016.64

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spinal Cord        ISSN: 1362-4393            Impact factor:   2.772


  29 in total

1.  Intramedullary high signal intensity on T2-weighted MR images in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: prediction of prognosis with type of intensity.

Authors:  C J Chen; R K Lyu; S T Lee; Y C Wong; L J Wang
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 11.105

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

Authors:  Zdeněk Kadaňka; Josef Bednařík; Oldřich Novotný; Igor Urbánek; Ladislav Dušek
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-04-26       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Magnetic resonance imaging and cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  T F Mehalic; R T Pezzuti; B I Applebaum
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 4.654

4.  Correlation between operative outcomes of cervical compression myelopathy and mri of the spinal cord.

Authors:  Y Morio; R Teshima; H Nagashima; K Nawata; D Yamasaki; Y Nanjo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Magnetic resonance imaging study on the results of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy.

Authors:  Y Okada; T Ikata; H Yamada; R Sakamoto; S Katoh
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Predictability of operative results of cervical compression myelopathy based on preoperative computed tomographic myelography.

Authors:  T Koyanagi; K Hirabayashi; K Satomi; Y Toyama; Y Fujimura
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Clinical and MRI predictors of outcome after surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  T Alafifi; R Kern; M Fehlings
Journal:  J Neuroimaging       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 2.486

8.  The prognosis of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy. An analysis of the factors involved.

Authors:  K Fujiwara; K Yonenobu; S Ebara; K Yamashita; K Ono
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1989-05

9.  Clinical predictors of surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: an analysis of 248 patients.

Authors:  M Pumberger; D Froemel; A Aichmair; A P Hughes; A A Sama; F P Cammisa; F P Girardi
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 5.082

10.  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

View more
  13 in total

1.  Intraoperative ultrasonography in laminectomy for degenerative cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a clinical and radiological evaluation.

Authors:  Annamaria Biczok; Manuel Fuetsch; Sebastian Siller; Maximilian Patzig; Joerg-Christian Tonn; Stefan Zausinger
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2022-05-10       Impact factor: 2.816

2.  Outcome factors in surgically treated patients for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Jiolanda Zika; George A Alexiou; Sotirios Giannopoulos; Ioannis Kastanioudakis; Athanasios P Kyritsis; Spyridon Voulgaris
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 1.985

3.  Resting-state Amplitude of Low-frequency Fluctuation is a Potentially Useful Prognostic Functional Biomarker in Cervical Myelopathy.

Authors:  Shota Takenaka; Shigeyuki Kan; Ben Seymour; Takahiro Makino; Yusuke Sakai; Junichi Kushioka; Hisashi Tanaka; Yoshiyuki Watanabe; Masahiko Shibata; Hideki Yoshikawa; Takashi Kaito
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 4.755

4.  Assessment of degenerative cervical myelopathy differs between specialists and may influence time to diagnosis and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Bryn Hilton; Jennifer Tempest-Mitchell; Benjamin Davies; Mark Kotter
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-12-17       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Route to diagnosis of degenerative cervical myelopathy in a UK healthcare system: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Bryn Hilton; Jennifer Tempest-Mitchell; Benjamin Davies; Mark Kotter
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-05-05       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Multivariate analysis of poor outcome after anterior surgery in multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients with heterotopic ossification and preoperative kyphotic alignment.

Authors:  ShaoQing Li; BaoYang Zhang; Yong Shen; ZhanYong Wu
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 2.423

7.  Towards prognostic functional brain biomarkers for cervical myelopathy: A resting-state fMRI study.

Authors:  Shota Takenaka; Shigeyuki Kan; Ben Seymour; Takahiro Makino; Yusuke Sakai; Junichi Kushioka; Hisashi Tanaka; Yoshiyuki Watanabe; Masahiko Shibata; Hideki Yoshikawa; Takashi Kaito
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-07-18       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Cord compression defined by MRI is the driving factor behind the decision to operate in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy despite poor correlation with disease severity.

Authors:  Bryn Hilton; Jennifer Tempest-Mitchell; Benjamin M Davies; Jibin Francis; Richard J Mannion; Rikin Trivedi; Ivan Timofeev; John R Crawford; Douglas Hay; Rodney J Laing; Peter J Hutchinson; Mark R N Kotter
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-26       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Quantitative Magnetization Transfer MRI Measurements of the Anterior Spinal Cord Region are Associated With Clinical Outcomes in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.

Authors:  Michael Brendan Cloney; Zachary A Smith; Kenneth A Weber; Todd B Parrish
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 3.241

10.  Tract-Specific Volume Loss on 3T MRI in Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.

Authors:  Benjamin S Hopkins; Kenneth A Weber; Michael Brendan Cloney; Monica Paliwal; Todd B Parrish; Zachary A Smith
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 3.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.