OPLL pp 177-180 | Cite as

Conservative Treatment of Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament in the Cervical Spine

  • Masatoshi Sumi
  • Minoru Doita
  • Kotarou Nishida


OPLL patients with mild myelopathy and without signs of worsening may be good candidates for conservative treatment. Immobilization of the cervical spine by various methods is an important principle of conservative treatment for avoiding dynamic factors. If traction is selected as the method of immobilization, the cervical spine should be kept flexed. Because some OPLL patients with mild myelopathy aggravate their myelopathy, and the surgical results of moderate myelopathy are superior to the results of conservative treatment, surgery should not be ruled out even if the outcome of conservative treatment is good, especially in patients with risk factors for a poor natural course or prognosis.


Spinal Cord Cervical Spine Conservative Treatment Dynamic Factor Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Matsunaga S, Sakou T, Taketomi E, Yamaguchi M, Okano T (1994) The natural course of myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. Clin Orthop 305:168–177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yonenobu K (2000) Cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy: when and what can surgery contribute to treatment? Eur Spine J 9:1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fujiwara Y, Nakamura M, Toyama Y (1998) Influence of minor trauma on surgical results in patients with cervical OPLL. J Spinal Disord 11:16–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koyanagi I, Iwasaki Y, Hida K, Imamura H, Fujimoto S, Akino M (2003) Acute cervical cord injury associated with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Neurosurgery 53:887–892PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Matsunaga S, Sakou T, Taketomi E, Komiya S (2004) Clinical course of patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a minimum 10-year cohort study. J Neurosurg (Spine 3) 100:245–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sawamura S, Sumi M, Kataoka O, Ikeda M, Mukai H (1998) Prognosis of nonsurgical cases of cervical myelopathy due to OPLL (in Japanese). Rinsho Seikei Geka (Clin Orthop Surg) 33:505–510Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Matsunaga S, Hayashi K, Kukita M, Komiya S (2004) Clinical course of conservatively treated patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (in Japanese) Bessatsu Seikeigeka (Orthop Surg) 45:37–40Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roberts AH (1966) Myelopathy due to cervical spondylosis treated by collar immobilization. Neurology 16:951–954Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    LaRocca H (1988) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: natural history. Spine 13:854–855PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fukui K, Kataoka O, Sho T, Sumi M (1990) Pathomechanism, pathogenesis, and results of treatment in cervical spondylotic myelopathy caused by dynamic canal stenosis. Spine 15:1148–1152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nakamura K, Kurokawa T, Hoshino Y, Saita K, Takeshita K, Kawaguchi H (1998) Conservative treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: achievement and sustainability of a level of no disability. J Spinal Disord 11:175–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednarik J, Smrcka V, Krbec M, Stejskal L, Chaloupka R, Surelova D, Novotny O, Urbanek I, Dusek L (2002) Approaches to spondylotic cervical myelopathy: conservative versus surgical results in a 3-year follow-up study. Spine 27:2205–2211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sumi M, Sho T, Kataoka O, Hirose T (1991) Clinical result of continuous traction for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and myelopathy (in Japanese). Seikeigeka (Orthop Surg) 42:640–645Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Montgomery DM, Brower RS (1992) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: clinical syndrome and natural history. Orthop Clin North Am 23:487–493PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sampath P, Bendebba M, Davis JD, Ducker TB (2000) Outcome of patients treated for cervical myelopathy: a prospective, multicenter study with independent clinical review. Spine 25:670–676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nurick S (1972) The pathogenesis of spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 95:87–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Penning L (1962) Some aspects of plain radiography of the cervical spine in chronic myelopathy. Neurology 12:513–519PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kataoka O, Kurihara A (1977) The role of dynamic canal stenosis in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J WPOA 14:1–22Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matsunaga S, Sakou T, Hayashi K, Ishidou Y, Hirotsu M, Komiya S (2002) Trauma-induced myelopathy in patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Neurosurg 97:172–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kameyama T, Hashizume Y, Ando T, Takahashi A, Yanagi T, Mizuno J (1995) Spinal cord morphology and pathology in ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Brain 118:263–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bohlman HH (1995) Cervical spondylosis and myelopathy. Instr Course Lect 44:81–97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Borden JN (1975) Good Samaritan cervical traction. Clin Orthop 113:162–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masatoshi Sumi
    • 1
  • Minoru Doita
    • 2
  • Kotarou Nishida
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Japan Labour Health and Welfare OrganizationKobe Rosai HospitalKobeJapan
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryKobe University Graduate School of MedicineKobeJapan

Personalised recommendations