Abstract
The natural history of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is usually one of a slow, stepwise decline, with a minority of patients experiencing periods of quiescence or even subtle clinical improvement with nonoperative treatment over time [1]. Surgical intervention, on average, has convincingly shown to improve neurological outcomes, functional status, and quality of life in DCM patients, regardless of the severity of preoperative functional status [2]. As a result, surgery remains the preferred treatment approach for this patient population. That said, at the individual patient level, postoperative outcomes continue to be variable. As such, surgeons should be aware of the factors which predict operative outcome; such knowledge is essential to aid preoperative communications and to manage patient expectations for recovery in the short and long term.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsBibliography
Matz PG, Anderson PA, Holly LT, et al. The natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11(2):104–11.
Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Kopjar B, et al. Efficacy and safety of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results of the AOSpine North America prospective multi-center study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(18):1651–8.
Tetreault LA, Côté P, Kopjar B, Arnold P, Fehlings MG, Network ANAaICTR. A clinical prediction model to assess surgical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: internal and external validations using the prospective multicenter AOSpine North American and international datasets of 743 patients. Spine J. 2015;15(3):388–97.
Tetreault L, Wilson JR, Kotter MR, et al. Predicting the minimum clinically important difference in patients undergoing surgery for the treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy. Neurosurg Focus. 2016;40(6):E14.
Morio Y, Teshima R, Nagashima H, Nawata K, Yamasaki D, Nanjo Y. Correlation between operative outcomes of cervical compression myelopathy and MRI of the spinal cord. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(11):1238–45.
Tetreault LA, Karpova A, Fehlings MG. Predictors of outcome in patients with degenerative cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing surgical treatment: results of a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(Suppl 2):236–51.
Holly LT, Matz PG, Anderson PA, et al. Clinical prognostic indicators of surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11(2):112–8.
Tetreault L, Ibrahim A, Côté P, Singh A, Fehlings MG. A systematic review of clinical and surgical predictors of complications following surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(1):77–99.
Kusin DJ, Ahn UM, Ahn NU. The effect of smoking on spinal cord healing following surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(18):1391–6.
Alafifi T, Kern R, Fehlings M. Clinical and MRI predictors of outcome after surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neuroimaging. 2007;17(4):315–22.
Arnold PM, Fehlings MG, Kopjar B, et al. Mild diabetes is not a contraindication for surgical decompression in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results of the AOSpine North America multicenter prospective study (CSM). Spine J. 2014;14(1):65–72.
Kim HJ, Moon SH, Kim HS, et al. Diabetes and smoking as prognostic factors after cervical laminoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(11):1468–72.
Nardone R, Höller Y, Brigo F, et al. The contribution of neurophysiology in the diagnosis and management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a review. Spinal Cord. 2016;54(10):756–66.
Lyu RK, Tang LM, Chen CJ, Chen CM, Chang HS, Wu YR. The use of evoked potentials for clinical correlation and surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy with intramedullary high signal intensity on MRI. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004;75(2):256–61.
Karpova A, Arun R, Cadotte DW, et al. Assessment of spinal cord compression by magnetic resonance imaging--can it predict surgical outcomes in degenerative compressive myelopathy? A systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(16):1409–21.
Fukushima T, Ikata T, Taoka Y, Takata S. Magnetic resonance imaging study on spinal cord plasticity in patients with cervical compression myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16(10 Suppl):S534–8.
Mummaneni PV, Kaiser MG, Matz PG, et al. Preoperative patient selection with magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and electroencephalography: does the test predict outcome after cervical surgery? J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11(2):119–29.
Tetreault LA, Dettori JR, Wilson JR, et al. Systematic review of magnetic resonance imaging characteristics that affect treatment decision making and predict clinical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(22 Suppl 1):S89–110.
Nouri A, Tetreault L, Zamorano JJ, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting surgical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(3):171–8.
Mizuno J, Nakagawa H, Inoue T, Hashizume Y. Clinicopathological study of “snake-eye appearance” in compressive myelopathy of the cervical spinal cord. J Neurosurg. 2003;99(2 Suppl):162–8.
Fernández de Rota JJ, Meschian S, Fernández de Rota A, Urbano V, Baron M. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy due to chronic compression: the role of signal intensity changes in magnetic resonance images. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6(1):17–22.
Karpova A, Arun R, Kalsi-Ryan S, Massicotte EM, Kopjar B, Fehlings MG. Do quantitative magnetic resonance imaging parameters correlate with the clinical presentation and functional outcomes after surgery in cervical spondylotic myelopathy? A prospective multicenter study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(18):1488–97.
Nouri A, Tetreault L, Côté P, Zamorano JJ, Dalzell K, Fehlings MG. Does magnetic resonance imaging improve the predictive performance of a validated clinical prediction rule developed to evaluate surgical outcome in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(14):1092–100.
Tetreault L, Le D, Côté P, Fehlings M. The practical application of clinical prediction rules: a commentary using case examples in surgical patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Global Spine J. 2015;5(6):457–65.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ku, J., Wilson, J.R. (2019). Factors Predictive of Operative Outcome. In: Kaiser, M., Haid, R., Shaffrey, C., Fehlings, M. (eds) Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy and Radiculopathy . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97952-6_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97952-6_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97951-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97952-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)