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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Nurick S (1972) The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 95:87–100
Kato Y, Iwasaki M, Fuji T et al (1998) Long-term follow-up results of laminectomy for cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Neurosurg 89:217–223
Goto S, Mochizuki M, Watanabe T et al (1993) Long-term follow-up study of anterior surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy with special reference to the magnetic resonance imaging findings in 52 cases. Clin Othop Rel Res 291:142–153
Hirai O, Kondo A, Aoyama I et al (1991) Anterior decompression surgery of aged patients with cervical myelopathy. No Shinkei Geka 19:1017–1023
Singh A, Choi D, Crockard A (2009) Use of walking data in assessing operative results for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: long-term follow-up and comparison with controls. Spine 34(12):1296–1300
Matsumoto M, Chiba K, Ishikawa M et al (2001) Relationships between outcomes of conservative treatment and magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with mild cervical myelopathy caused by soft disc herniations. Spine 26:1592–1598
Benzel EC, Lancon J, Kesterson L et al (1991) Cervical laminectomy and dentate ligament section for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spin Disord 4:286–295
Dupont WD, Plummer WD (1997) PS power and sample size program available for free on the Internet. Controlled Clin Trials 18:274
Fleiss JL (1981) Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 2nd edn. John Wiley, NewYork, pp 38–46
Lehmann EL (1975) Nonparametrics. Statistical methods based on ranks. Holden-Day, San Francisco
LaRocca H (1988) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: natural history. Spine 13:854–855
Clarke E, Robinson PK (1956) Cervical myelopathy: a complication of cervical spondylosis. Brain 79:483–510
Epstein JA, Janin Y, Carras R et al (1982) A comparative study of the treatment of the cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Experience with 50 cases treated by means of extensive laminectomy, foraminotomy, and excision of osteophytes during the past 10 years. Acta Neurochir 61:89–104
Montgomery DM, Brower RS (1992) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clinical syndrome and natural history. Orthop Clin North Am 23:487–493
Sadasivan KK, Reddy RP, Albright JA (1993) The natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Yale J Biol Med 66:235–242
Symon L, Lavender P (1967) The surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurology 17(2):117–127
Nurick S (1972) The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 95:87–100
Shimomura T, Sumi M, Nishida K et al (2007) Prognostic factors for deterioration of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy after nonsurgical treatment. Spine 32:2474–2479
Lees F, Turner JWA (1963) Natural history and prognosis of cervical spondylosis. Br Med J 2:1607–1610
Utley D, Monro P (1989) Neurosurgery for cervical spondylosis. Br J Hosp Med 42:62–70
Rowland LP (1992) Surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Time for a controlled trial. Neurology 42:5–13
Law MD, Bernhardt M, White AA (1994) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a review of surgical indications and decisions making. Yale J Biol Med 66:165–177
Braakman R (1994) Management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 57:257–263
Ebersold MJ, Pare MC, Quast CM (1995) Surgical treatment for cervical spondylitic myelopathy. J Neurosurg 82:745–751
Yonebobu K, Hosono N, Iwasaki M et al (1991) Neurologic complications of surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 16:1277–1282
Gok B, Sciubba DM, McLoughlin GS et al (2008) Revision surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical results and outcome. Neurosurgery 63:292–298
Xu BS, Zhang ZL, Le Huec JC et al (2009) Long-term follow-up results and radiographic findings of anterior surgery with Cloward trephination for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spinal Disord Tech 22:105–113
Okamoto A, Shinomiya K, Furuya K et al (1991) Postoperative magnetic resonance in patients with cervical myelopathy. Spine 39:263–267
Kadanka Z, Bednarik J, Vohanka S et al (2000) Conservative treatment versus surgery in spondylotic cervical myelopathy: a prospective randomised study. Eur Spine 9:538–544
Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednarik J et al (2002) Approaches to spondylotic cervical myelopathy: conservative vs surgical results in a three-year follow-up study. Spine 27:2205–2211
Kadaňka Z, Mareš M, Bednařík J et al (2005) Predictive factors for mild forms of spondylotic cervical myelopathy treated conservatively or surgically. Eur J Neurol 12(1):16–24
Acknowledgments
The study was supported by the Czech Ministry of Education Research Plan No.: MSM 0021622404.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kadaňka, Z., Bednařík, J., Novotný, O. et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: conservative versus surgical treatment after 10 years. Eur Spine J 20, 1533–1538 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1811-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1811-9