| Literature DB >> 28894681 |
Feras J Waly1,2, Fahad H Abduljabbar1,3, Maryse Fortin1, Anas Nooh1, Michael Weber1.
Abstract
STUDYEntities:
Keywords: cervical; cervical disc herniation; cervical spondylotic myelopathy; degenerative cervical myelopathy; myelopathy
Year: 2017 PMID: 28894681 PMCID: PMC5582716 DOI: 10.1177/2192568217701101
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Global Spine J ISSN: 2192-5682
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.
| Inclusion | Exclusion | |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy (spondylosis, disc herniation, and OPLL) | Patients with a thoracic spinal cord injury, thoracic myelopathy, tumor, infection, radiculopathy, or other nondegenerative myelopathy |
| >18 years old | Animal studies | |
| Patients treated surgically or nonsurgically | Review articles, case series, and opinions | |
| Posttreatment follow-up | ||
| Prognostic factors | CT myelography characteristics as primary prognostic factors | Primary prognostic factors: age, the duration of symptoms, signs or symptoms, comorbidities, sex, and factors from other diagnostic modalities (eg, the anteroposterior diameter determined on radiography) |
| Outcomes | Validated outcome assessment measure (eg, JOA, Nurick score, or mJOA score) | Subjective outcome assessment measures Radiographical outcomes |
| Studies that reported adverse events | Other complications such as dysphagia, non-unions, infection, and pseudoarthrosis | |
| Study design | Cohort studies | Studies with <10 patients in each comparison group |
Abbreviations: OPLL, ossified posterior longitudinal ligament; CT, computed tomography; JOA, Japanese Orthopaedic Association; mJOA, modified JOA, Japanese Orthopaedic Association.
Figure 1.Flowchart showing results of literature search.
Summary of the Study Design, Sample Size, Duration of Follow-up, Type of Clinical Outcome Measures, and Quality of Evidence for the Included Studies.
| Authors | Study Design and Level of Evidencea | Sample and Characteristics | CT Factors Assessed | Mean Duration of Follow-up | Outcome Measure Scale |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fujiwara et al (1989) | Retrospective cohort Level III | CSM, 19; CDH, 20; OPLL, 11 (N = 50) Procedures: Single level (CSM, HD): Anterior interbody fusion (Smith-Robinson) 2-3 levels (CSM, HD): Subtotal corpectomy and fusion 4 levels or more (CSM, OPLL): Laminectomy or laminoplasty |
Transverse area The compression ratio The shape at the maximum compression segment. | NR | JOA recovery rateb |
| Koyanagi et al (1993) | Retrospective cohort Level III | CSM, 44; OPLL, 39; CDH, 20 (N = 103) Mean ages (years): CSM, 57; OPLL, 59; CDH, 46 Procedures: Expansive open door laminoplasty Anterior decompression and fusion Combined anterior and posterior Symptoms duration: CSM, 8.6 mo; OPLL, 16.9 mo; CDH, 8.5 mo |
Transverse area Flattening ratio | NR | JOA recovery rateb |
| Wada et al (1999) | Retrospective cohort Level III | CSM (N = 50) Mean duration of symptoms (±SD): 9.1 ± 8.5 mo (range, 1-36 mo) Surgical procedure: open door laminoplasty |
Transverse area of spinal cord at maximum compression on CT myelography Number of blocks on myelogram | 35.1 mo (range 24.4-48.3 mo) (67% F/U) | JOA recovery rateb |
| Yamazaki et al (2003) | Retrospective cohort Level III | CSM (N = 64) Mean age (±SD): 64.6 ± 12.0 years Mean duration of symptoms (±SD): 25.6 ± 30.6 mo Groups based on age Elderly (≥65 years, n = 35) Mean age (±SD): 73.9 ± 4.4 years Mean duration of symptoms (±SD): 20.7 ± 19.2 mo Younger (<65 years, n = 29) Mean age (±SD): 53.4 ± 7.8 years Mean duration of symptoms (±SD): 33.6 ± 39.8 mo Procedure: expansive laminoplasty |
Diameter in mm Transverse area in mm2 | 40 mo | JOA recovery rateb |
| Uchida et al (2005) | Retrospective cohort Level III | CSM, 77; OPLL, 58 (N = 135) Males, 43; females, 34 Male, 62% Mean age (range): 43.8 years (27-73 years) Duration of symptoms: <1 year to ≥3 years Procedures: En bloc C3-C7 open door laminoplasty (n = 92). Robinson’s anterior fusion (n = 15) Subtotal spondylectomy at 1-2 vertebrae with interbody fusion (n = 28) |
Preoperative rate of spinal canal narrowing Percentage of preoperative spinal canal narrowing at the most affected segment | 99.6 mo (range 1.0-12.8 years) (% F/U NR) | JOAc |
Abbreviations: CSM, compressive spondylotic myelopathy; OPLL, ossified posterior longitudinal ligament; CDH, cervical disc herniation; F/U, follow-up; NR, not reported; JOA, Japanese Orthopaedic Association.
aLevel of evidence based on the criteria proposed by Skelly et al.
bCalculated using the Hirabayashi method: (Postoperative JOA score − Preoperative JOA score) ÷ (17 [full score] − Preoperative JOA score) × 100.
cMotor JOA score: upper extremity motor function: 0, cannot eat with a spoon; 1, can eat with a spoon but not with chopsticks; 2, can eat with chopsticks but to a limited degree; 3, can eat with chopsticks but awkwardly; and 4, no disability. Lower extremity: 0, cannot walk; 1, needs a cane or aid on flat ground; 2, needs a cane or aid only on stairs; 3, can walk without a cane or aid but walks slowly; and 4, no disability.
CT Myelography Parameters as Predictors of Outcome in Operative Patients.
| Predictor | Outcome | Authors (Year) | Surgery | Association With Outcomea |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of the preoperative spinal canal narrowing at the most affected segment | JOA score | Uchida et al (2005) | ACDF or laminoplasty | Positive |
| Transverse area of the spinal cord at maximum compression on CT myelographyb | JOA recovery rate | Wada et al (1999) | Laminoplasty | Positive |
| Yamazaki et al (2003) | Laminoplasty | Positive | ||
| Koyanagi et al (1993) | ACDF, laminoplasty or combined | Positive | ||
| Fujiwara et al (1989) | ACCF, ACDF, laminoplasty, or laminectomy | Positive | ||
| Number of blocks on myelography | JOA recovery rate | Wada et al (1999) | Laminoplasty | Negative |
| Canal diameterb | JOA recovery rate | Yamazaki et al (2003) | Laminoplasty | No |
| Flattening ratioc | JOA recovery rate | Koyanagi et al (1993) | ACDF, laminoplasty or combined | Positive only for OPLL |
Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy fusion; ACCF, anterior cervical corpectomy fusion; CSM, compressive spondylotic myelopathy; OPLL, ossified posterior longitudinal ligament; CDH, cervical disc herniation; JOA, Japanese Orthopaedic Association.
aNegative: the factor is a significant predictive of a poor outcome. Positive: the factor is a significant predictive of a good outcome. No: the factor is not a predictor of outcome.
bCanal diameters of the spinal canal and the transverse area of the spinal cord at the level of maximum compression were measured on preoperative CT myelogram by a computer program: the surface of each axial slice was digitized, and the area of the spinal cord and canal diameter were calculated by 3-dimensional reconstruction software. cCalculated by dividing the anteroposterior diameter of the spinal cord by the transverse diameter of the spinal cord ×100. JOA recovery rate: Calculated using the Hirabayashi method: (Postoperative JOA score − Preoperative JOA score) ÷ (17 [full score] − Preoperative JOA score) × 100.
Evidence Summary for CT Myelography.a
| CT Characteristics | Strength of Evidence | Conclusions/Comments | Baselineb | Downgrade (Levels) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research Question 1: Do any CT myelogram imaging parameters in patients diagnosed with CSM correlate with the severity of CSM? | ||||
| Insufficient | No evidence found | |||
| Research Question 2: Do any CT myelogram imaging parameters in patients diagnosed with CSM predict the patients’ postoperative outcome? | ||||
| Percentage of the preoperative spinal canal narrowing at the most affected segment | Insufficient | Associated with 1 retrospective study | Low | Inconsistency |
| Transverse area of the spinal cord at maximum compression on CT myelography | Low | Associated with 4 retrospective studies | Low | |
| Number of blocks on myelography | Insufficient | Associated with 1 retrospective study | Low | Inconsistency |
| Canal diameter | Insufficient | Not associated with 1 retrospective study | Low | Inconsistency |
| Flattening ratio | Insufficient | Associated with 1 retrospective study | Low | Inconsistency |
Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; CSM, cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
aUpgrade: A large magnitude of effect (1 or 2 levels), dose-response gradient (1 level), plausible confounding decrease in the magnitude of effect (1 level). Downgrade: Inconsistency of results (1 or 2 levels), indirectness of evidence (1 or 2 levels), imprecision of effect estimates (1 or 2 levels), risk of bias (1 or 2 levels), failure to specify subgroup analysis a priori (1 level), reporting bias (1 level).
bBaseline quality: High = the majority of articles had a level I/II. Low = the majority of articles had a level III/IV.