DEGENERATIVE DISEASE

State of the Art in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy:

An Update on Current Clinical Evidence
Jefferson R. Wilson, MD, PhD∗ Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common cause of spinal cord dysfunction
Lindsay A. Tetreault, PhD‡ that confronts clinicians on a daily basis. Research performed over the past few decades has
Jun Kim, MD§ provided improved insight into the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of this disorder.
Mohammed F. Shamji, MD, We aim to provide clinicians with an update regarding the state of the art in DCM, focusing
on more recent research pertaining to pathophysiology, natural history, treatment, consid-
PhD‡
eration of the minimally symptomatic patient, surgical outcome prediction, and outcome
James S. Harrop, MD¶ measurement. Current concepts of pathophysiology focus on the combination of static
Thomas Mroz, MD|| and dynamic elements leading to breakdown of the blood–spinal cord barrier at the
Samuel Cho, MD§ site of compression resulting in local inflammation, cellular dysfunction, and apoptosis.
Michael G. Fehlings, MD, PhD∗ With respect to treatment, although there is a dearth of high-quality studies comparing
surgical to nonoperative treatment, several large prospective studies have recently
∗
Department of Surgery, Division of associated surgical management with clinically and statistically significant improvement
Neurosurgery, St. Michael’s Hospital,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada;
in functional, disability, and quality of life outcome at long-term follow-up. When selecting
‡
Department of Surgery, Division of the specific surgical intervention for a patient with DCM, anterior (discectomy, corpectomy,
Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, hybrid discectomy/corpectomy), posterior (laminectomy and fusion, laminoplasty), and
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada;
§
Department of Orthopedic Surgery,
combined approaches may be considered as options depending on the specifics of the
Icahn School of Medicine, New York, patient in question; evidence supporting each of these approaches is reviewed in detail.
New York; ¶ Division of Neurosurgery Recently developed clinical prediction models allow for accurate forecasting of postoper-
and Orthopedics, Thomas Jefferson
University Hospital, Thomas Jefferson
ative outcomes, permitting enhanced communication and management of patient expec-
University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; tations in the preoperative setting. Finally, an overview of outcome measures recom-
||
Division of Neurosurgery, Cleveland mended for use in the assessment of DCM patients is provided.
Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
KEY WORDS: Degenerative cervical myelopathy, Cervical spondylotic myelopathy, Surgery, Pathophysiology,
Correspondence: Natural history, Outcome prediction, Outcome measures, Review
Michael G. Fehlings, MD, PhD, FRCSC,
Toronto Western Hospital, Neurosurgery 80:S33–S45, 2017 DOI:10.1093/neuros/nyw083 www.neurosurgery-online.com
West Wing 4th floor,
399 Bathurst Street,
Toronto, ON M5T 2S8, Canada.

D
E-mail: [email protected]
egenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) by gait imbalance, loss of hand dexterity,
represents a collection of pathological and sphincter dysfunction.1 Although epidemi-
Received, August 15, 2016. entities, which individually, or in combi- ological studies are sparse in the literature, DCM
Accepted, September 22, 2016. nation, cause compression of the cervical spinal is one of the most common causes of spinal cord
cord, resulting in a clinical syndrome typified dysfunction internationally, with an estimated
Copyright 
C 2016 by the
annual incidence of 41 per million in North
Congress of Neurological Surgeons
America; from a surgical perspective, DCM
ABBREVIATIONS: ACDF, anterior cervical ranks amongst the most common of indications
discectomy and fusion; BSCB, blood–spinal for surgery on the cervical spine.2-4
cord barrier; CI, confidence interval; CSM, In this review, we provide an overview of
cervical spondylotic myelopathy; DCM, Degen- the state of the art in DCM, with a focus
erative cervical myelopathy; DTI, diffusion tensor
imaging; FA, fractional anisotropy; JOA, Japanese
on updating the modern day spine surgeon
Orthopaedic Association; mJOA, modified JOA; on the current evidence surrounding patho-
MCID, minimally clinical important difference; MRI, physiology, natural history, imaging, outcome
magnetic resonance imaging; NDI, Neck Disability measures, and outcome prediction tools. Further,
Index; OPLL, ossification of the posterior longi- with respect to treatment, we provide an
tudinal ligament; RCT, randomized control trial; overview of the evidence for surgical vs nonop-
RR, relative risk; SI, signal intensity; WI, weighted
erative management, a summary of the liter-
images
ature surrounding the most commonly employed

NEUROSURGERY VOLUME 80 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2017 Supplement | S33

WILSON ET AL

FIGURE. Artist depiction of anatomic and pathological changes that may occur in the setting of DCM. Reused with permission
from Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: epidemiology, genetics, and
pathogenesis. Spine. 2015;40:E675-E693.

S34 | VOLUME 80 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2017 Supplement www.neurosurgery-online.com

 STATE OF THE ART IN DEGENERATIVE CERVICAL MYELOPATHY

ological and, in the setting of degenerative subluxation, patho-

TABLE 1. Overview of the Factors involved in the Pathophysiology of logical motion of the cervical spine.8
DCM5,8 When considering injury to the spinal cord itself, there is
histopathological evidence to suggest that in addition to physical
Static factors
1) Spondylosis
compression, there is a reduction in blood supply leading to
2) Disk degeneration considerable ischemia within the cord.8 Pathological features
3) Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of DCM include gray and white matter degeneration, anterior
4) Ossification of the ligamentum flavum horn cell loss, cystic cavitation, and Wallerian degeneration of
5) Congenital stenosis the posterior columns adjacent to the site of compression. In
Dynamic Factors rat models, Karadimas et al9 demonstrated decreased capillary
1) Degenerative spondylolisthesis
density in the compressed spinal cord compared to controls,
2) Physiological narrowing of canal diameter with neck extension
3) Strain and stretch forces placed on spinal cord with physiological
thereby indicating blood–spinal cord barrier (BSCB) disruption
neck movements in the setting of progressive stenosis from DCM. This correlated
Biomolecular factors with a progression from a narrow-based normal gait to a broad-
1) Ischemic injury due to chronic compression of spinal cord based gait with chronic compression in rat models. In the setting
vasculature and break down of blood–spinal cord barrier of such vascular insufficiency, local ischemia can lead to neuronal
2) Increased local inflammatory response ionic imbalance and cellular dysfunction resulting in excitotoxic
3) Increased local expression of CX3CR1
glutamate release and an expanded zone of neural tissue injury.9,10
4) Glutamate-mediated excitotoxicity
5) Oligodendrocyte and neuronal apoptosis In addition to the above, with breakdown of the normal
BSCB, a secondary cascade of neuroinflammation consisting
of microglia activation and macrophage recruitment occurs at
the site of mechanical compression within the spinal cord. In
the noncompressed nonmyelopathic spinal cord, the BSCB is
surgical approaches and a description of novel and less accepted isolated from the peripheral immune system; however, chronic
surgical techniques. compression renders the cord susceptible to cell infiltration
that may be involved in neural degeneration. Recent liter-
Terminology ature has delved into the inflammatory pathways implicated in
DCM is used to describe myelopathy resulting from degener- DCM. Specifically, with respect to gene expression, increased
ative pathology in the cervical spine including spondylosis, degen- local expression of CX3CR1 has been associated with increased
erative disk disease, ossification of the posterior longitudinal microglia and macrophage accumulation at compression sites.11
ligament (OPLL), and ossification of the ligamentum flavum Current research is focused on further defining the role of the
(Figure).3 While each of these pathological entities may immune response, as well as the specific inflammatory pathways,
be discussed individually (ie, the term cervical spondylotic underlying the pathobiology of DCM.
myelopathy [CSM] may be used when considering spondy- In addition to the above, with respect to OPLL, substantial
lotic disease alone), when considering these entities together, the progress has been made in understanding the genetics and patho-
term DCM is increasingly preferred and employed throughout biology underlying this disorder. The reader is referred to one of
the literature. Throughout this manuscript, unless discussing several recent reviews on this topic.12
evidence pertinent to specific pathology (CSM or OPLL alone),
the term DCM will be used.
NATURAL HISTORY
PATHOPHYSIOLOGY
Traditionally, the natural history of patients presenting with
The pathogenesis of DCM is composed of static and dynamic myelopathy was thought to be marked by near uniform decline
factors.5 Table 1 provides a summary of the pathophysiology of in neurological and functional status. In their description of
DCM. Static factors result from congenital stenosis or acquired 120 patients with cervical myelopathy, Clarke and Robinson13
stenosis secondary to spondylosis and disk degeneration. Specif- described the natural history as proceeding according to one of
ically, age-related desiccation of the disk secondary to a change several patterns: 5% had a rapid onset of symptoms followed
in its proteoglycan composition initiates a cascade of degener- by long periods of remission, 20% had a slow gradual decline
ative changes that lead to disk height loss, increased uncover- in function, and 75% had a stepwise decline in function. Over
tebral and facet joint stress, resulting in subsequent osteophyte the years, additional studies have documented a highly variable
generation, infolding of the ligamentum flavum, and ultimately, natural history; while certain patients remain clinically stable at
a reduction in the cross-sectional area of the cervical spinal canal long-term follow-up, a large proportion experience clinical deteri-
leading to compression of the spinal cord.5-7 Dynamic factors oration if left untreated. A 2013 systematic review by Karadimas
relate to exacerbation of spinal cord compression seen with physi- et al5 sought to more specifically quantify the rate of clinical

NEUROSURGERY VOLUME 80 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2017 Supplement | S35

WILSON ET AL

deterioration amongst patients presenting with DCM treated (1.29 points). These results seem to indicate that surgery is most
nonoperatively. Amongst the 6 studies that considered Japanese effective in restoring function to those with severe and moderate
Orthopaedic Association (JOA) or modified JOA (mJOA) scores, myelopathy at presentation.
20% to 62% of patients experienced clinical deterioration, The subsequently published prospective AOSpine Interna-
defined by at least a 1 point reduction in mJOA/JOA compared tional CSM study19 has helped to confirm some of the findings
to baseline, at 3- to 6-years follow-up. reported in the North American Study. Namely, when analyzing
Acknowledging the often variable natural history of DCM, the 2-year outcomes across 479 patients enrolled at 16 global sites
the ensuing challenge is to identify important predictors of between 2007 and 2011, the authors found statistically signif-
clinical deterioration for purposes of expediting the evaluation icant improvements in the same functional, disability, and quality
and surgical treatment of this patient subgroup. In individual of life-related outcomes evaluated in the North American study.
studies, clinical and radiological features including increased Further, the mean changes observed surpassed the minimally
neck range of motion,14 female sex,14 longer duration of clinical important difference (MCID) threshold values for the
symptoms,15 worse functional status at presentation,16 and outcomes considered, indicating that the improvements were
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evidence of circumferential not only statistically significant, but also clinically important.
spinal cord compression17 have been associated with increased These findings are particularly interesting in light of the fact that
risk for neurological deterioration over time. In the same there was substantial variation in the demographics, causative
systematic review discussed above, these predictor variables were pathology, and surgical approach employed from region to
assessed for their robustness considering factors such as study region. Examples of this included a higher proportion of anterior
design, length, and percentage of follow-up, as well as the presence cervical approaches within European centers vs Latin American
of adjustment using regression techniques.5 Using these criteria, centers (71% vs 33%, respectively) and a higher proportion
there was low evidence that the presence of circumferential cord of OPLL amongst patients treated in Asia Pacific centers vs
compression was associated with deterioration in mJOA score North American centers (35% vs 12%, respectively). These points
at follow-up; there was insufficient evidence to support the provide external validity to the findings of the North American
prognostic significance of the remaining variables. study, by replicating the results of that study in several different
geographic regions with different practice patterns and distribu-
tions of pathology.
EFFICACY OF SURGERY IN DCM In addition to the studies discussed above, a number of smaller
prospective studies have also commented on the impact of surgical
Over the last decade, many studies have emerged investigating
treatment on clinical outcomes at follow-up. In presented work,
the efficacy of surgery in patients with DCM. When considering
a meta-analysis by Shamji et al20 collated the effect of surgery
this evidence body, it is useful to divide the discussion according
across 32 prospective studies evaluating a variety of surgical proce-
to 2 main study types: (1) studies which do not directly compare
dures in patients with symptomatic DCM. When considering
operative to nonoperative treatment (noncomparative studies),
this body of literature, the standard mean difference, or average
and (2) studies which directly compare operative to nonoperative
improvement at 1-year follow-up, was 1.92 for mJOA/JOA (95%
treatment (comparative studies).
confidence interval [CI] 1.41-2.43), 18.02 for NDI (95% CI
11.02-25.02), and 1.42 for Nurick (95% CI 1.11-1.74). These
Noncomparative Studies Evaluating the Impact pooled estimates, all of which exceed the MCID for the respective
of Surgery on Clinical Outcomes outcome measure, are expected to be particularly robust in
Published in 2013, the AOSpine CSM North America Study18 estimating postoperative outcomes, given that the studies which
remains one of the largest prospective studies performed to were used for their generation involved a variety of surgical proce-
date evaluating the impact of surgical management on clinical dures (anterior, posterior, combined, arthroplasty, laminoplasty,
outcomes. In this study, investigators at 12 North American etc) and emanate from many geographical locations (Asia Pacific,
centers enrolled 278 surgically treated patients with mild, South America, Europe, and North America); hence, the results
moderate, and severe myelopathy, with the specifics of surgical should be generalizable.
management left to the discretion of the surgeon involved. At Several points are important when considering these
1-year follow-up, across the entire spectrum of injury severity, findings. First, traditionally, there has been substantial nihilism
statistically and clinically significant improvements were noted surrounding the potential for functional recovery after surgery
for functional outcome (mJOA and Nurick grade), disability for DCM, with preoperative discussions centered principally
outcome (Neck Disability Index [NDI]) as well as generic on the central goal of symptom stabilization. To the contrary,
health-related quality of life (SF-36). When dissecting the results these findings suggest that, on average, patients will experience
depending on initial symptom severity, a statistically significant functional, disability-related, and quality of life improvements
difference was noted when considering change in mJOA at 1-year at long-term follow-up. Second, evidence of differential efficacy
postop, with severe patients improving the most (4.91 points), depending on preoperative symptoms severity suggests that
moderate the second most (2.58 points), and mild the least surgeons should be particularly aggressive in advocating for

S36 | VOLUME 80 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2017 Supplement www.neurosurgery-online.com

 STATE OF THE ART IN DEGENERATIVE CERVICAL MYELOPATHY

surgical management in the severe subclass of patients. Third, in comparison to the 68 patients originally enrolled. In addition,
while the risks of surgery are not zero, rates of serious compli- the postoperative functional outcomes described in this study
cation events are low, with the most common complication (0 change in mJOA) are at odds with a substantial number of
being postoperative neck pain/discomfort. Finally, however, it is prospective surgical series (described above), which consistently
important to remember that while these studies have a number of support clinically significant functional improvements at follow-
methodological strengths, due to reasons discussed above, there up, irrespective of the procedure performed. In summary, while
were no nonoperative treatment arms, and as a result, it is not representing the best evidence available on the topic of surgical
possible to comment on the absolute efficacy or safety of surgery vs nonoperative, in light of the concerns raised, this study cannot
in relation to conservative measures based on these studies. be used to justify the routine practice of treating DCM patients
nonoperatively.
Studies Comparing Operative to Nonoperative Summary of Surgical Literature and Upcoming Surgical
Treatment Guidelines
In one of the few randomized studies available on this topic, In summary, a large body of literature has shown operative
Kadanka et al21 randomized patients with mild DCM (which management to result in clinically and statistically significant
they defined by an mJOA score of ≥12 points) to surgery vs gains at long-term follow-up; unfortunately, for the ethical and
nonoperative management. Although nonoperative management practical reasons discussed above, the majority of these studies
was not standardized in this study (consisted of elements of inter- do not directly compare operative to nonoperative management.
mittent bed rest, use of collar, anti-inflammatory medication, However, when combining our knowledge surrounding the
and discouragement of high-risk activities), when considering unpredictable and often progressive natural history of DCM
the 47 patients available for follow-up at 10 years postrandom- (20%-62% rate of deterioration), with the consistency of
ization (25 in the conservative arm and 22 in the operative beneficial effects and safety noted with surgical management
arm), there was no significant difference in mean mJOA score across the large number of uncontrolled studies, a compelling
(15 in conservative group, 14 in the surgical group), and no case can be made for surgical management regardless of patient
significant difference in mean mJOA change score (0 in both symptom severity.
conservative and surgical groups) between the treatment arms. In order to summarize the existing evidence, clinical guidelines
Similarly, no significant difference was observed between the are currently under development; these guidelines are currently
groups when considering the results of the 10-meter walk test undergoing external review, with publication anticipated in early
at the 10-year follow-up mark; however, a significant difference 2017.
favoring for the nonoperative treatment group was seen at 3
years.
In the only other prospective study on this topic, Sampath SURGICAL PROCEDURES
et al22 assessed rating of neurological symptoms, activities of
daily living, pain, and ability to work amongst 2 cohorts Apart from discussing the efficacy and safety of surgery in a
of DCM patients, with 1 cohort treated operatively and the generic fashion, it is also necessary to explore the specific surgical
other treated nonoperatively (pharmacological therapy with either options available for the treatment of DCM. When consid-
narcotic or nonsteroidal drugs, steroids, bed rest, home exercise, ering these options, the most fundamental distinction is between
cervical traction, neck bracing, or spinal injections). Of note, anteriorly and posteriorly directed procedures. Within posterior
the functional and neurological outcomes used in this study approaches, the 2 most often discussed and performed proce-
were created specifically by the authors for use in this study dures include laminectomy and fusion and laminoplasty. From
and relied on a subjective assessment of symptoms across several an anterior treatment perspective, anterior cervical discectomy
broad categories. Also, a direct statistical comparison between the and fusion (ACDF), anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,
operative and nonoperative group was not performed; instead, the and corpectomy/discectomy constructs are the most commonly
2 cohorts were considered independently. Independent of these performed. In this section, we review the available evidence
2 shortcomings, compared to baseline, patients treated nonop- comparing these procedures and discuss the role of preoperative
eratively had an increased number of neurological symptoms, alignment in operative decision making. Table 2 includes recom-
worsened activities of daily living and a more severe pain rating at mendations for use of these approaches, based on previously
11-month follow-up.22 completed evidence based reviews.
When considering these studies, several points are relevant.
With respect to the Kadanka study,21 the randomized nature Anterior vs Posterior Approaches
of this study and the prolonged follow-up achieved are clear The question of the relative suitability of an anterior vs
methodological strengths. However, while the authors allude to posterior approach for treatment of DCM remains one of the
power calculations performed prior to study commencement, the most fundamental, controversial, and unresolved in all of spine
sample size is small with 47 patients available at final follow-up, surgery. Classically, anterior approaches have been preferred in

NEUROSURGERY VOLUME 80 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2017 Supplement | S37

WILSON ET AL

TABLE 2. Evidenced-based Recommendations for Specific Surgical Interventions in the context of DCM

Surgical approach Recommendation

Anterior vs posterior approach – Comparative effectiveness and safety between anterior approaches
appear similar in patients with multilevel disease.
– An individualized approach accounting for pathoanatomical variations
is recommended.
– In general:
– In the presence of ventral pathology, a limited number of stenotic
segments (<3) and the presence of kyphotic deformity favor an anterior
approach.
– In the presence of posterior pathology, a greater number of stenotic
segments (≥ 3), maintained cervical lordosis and the presence of OPLL
favor a posterior approach.24
Laminectomy and fusion vs laminoplasty – Existing literature suggest both procedures to be safe and effective for
the treatment of DCM; no evidence of differential efficacy or safety
currently exists.
– Choice of procedure to depend on individual preferences and surgeon
familiarity.29
Anterior multilevel ACDF vs hybrid vs corpectomy – When performing an anterior approach in the setting of minimal
retrovertebral disease, multiple discectomy is recommended over
corpectomy or discectomy-corpectomy hybrid procedures.
– When performing an anterior approach in the presence of significant
retrovertebral disease, discectomy-corpectomy hybrid approaches are
preferred when possible over multiple corpectomies.26
Alternative procedures included: skip laminectomy, minimally invasive – Insufficient evidence currently exists to recommend these procedures
tubular or endoscopic over the more conventions approaches discussed above

the setting of myelopathy with predominately ventral compressive change in mJOA score from preop to postop, neither approach
pathology over a limited number of segments, or in the setting was consistently associated with superior outcomes. For 3 of
of cervical kyphosis or hypolordosis. In contrast, posterior the 4 studies that collected neck pain-related data, anterior
approaches have been preferred in the case of OPLL, or, in the approach was associated with reduced neck pain at follow-up;
setting of predominately dorsal compressive pathology, over a hence, there was “low” level of evidence, according to the grading
greater number of segments and preserved cervical lordosis. In system applied, that anterior surgery results in less neck pain.
perhaps the largest study to date to evaluate this question, Fehlings All 3 studies evaluating canal diameter associated the posterior
et al23 performed a retrospective cohort study using data from approach with increased canal diameter, leading to a “moderate”
the AOSpine CSM North America study, to compare clinical level of evidence favoring the posterior group with respect to
outcomes and complications amongst 264 patients, with 169 this outcome. In summary, when devising an evidence-based
treated anteriorly (ACDF or anterior cervical corpectomy and recommendation based on this body of literature, the authors
fusion) and 95 treated posteriorly (laminectomy and fusion 86% recommended “an individualized approach when treating patients
or laminoplasty 14%). In the unadjusted analysis, the anterior with CSM accounting for pathoanatomical variations (ventral
group experienced reduced functional recovery, with an average vs dorsal, focal vs diffuse, sagittal, dynamic instability), as there
of 2.5 points of mJOA improvement at 1 year compared to 3.6 appears to be similar outcomes between the anterior and posterior
points in the posterior group (P < .01). However, after adjusting approaches in regards to effectiveness and safety.”24
for preoperative characteristics, including preoperative mJOA, no Although the existing body of evidence seems unable to
difference in mJOA recovery was noted. With respect to other definitively provide an answer to the question of anterior vs
outcomes, including NDI, SF-36, Nurick, and complications, no posterior surgery, this may be partially due to the method-
significant differences were noted between the cohorts. ological limitations of the largely retrospective studies performed
To collate the evidence on this topic, Lawrence et al24 on this topic, each fraught with substantial concerns of selection
performed a systematic review that summarized the findings of and information bias. To overcome this limitation, a multi-
8 retrospective cohort studies comparing anterior and posterior center, randomized control trial (RCT), the cervical spondylotic
surgery for multilevel CSM. In summary, when considering myelopathy surgery trial, is currently underway, aiming to provide

S38 | VOLUME 80 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2017 Supplement www.neurosurgery-online.com

 STATE OF THE ART IN DEGENERATIVE CERVICAL MYELOPATHY

a definitive answer to the anterior vs posterior question, through lack of a designated primary outcome measure, small study
use of the most robust study design available for this purpose.25 population, lack of sample size calculation, and lack of a direct
statistical comparison between the treatment groups. Acknowl-
Anterior Multilevel ACDF vs Hybrid vs Corpectomy edging these limitations, the authors conclude that the findings
When confronted with the patient with multilevel cervical support that DCM patients are likely to benefit from both proce-
spondylosis and an anterior approach is decided upon, choice of dures.
optimal operative intervention remains controversial. Based on In addition to the discussed prospective randomized study,
the individual pathoanatomy, decompression may be achievable several retrospective cohort studies have compared lamino-
by multiple discectomies, although the presence of signif- plasty to laminectomy and fusion for DCM, 4 of which were
icant retrovertebral disease may require hybrid or corpectomy summarized in a recent systematic review by Yoon et al.29
approaches to achieve that objective. In a systematic review of With respect to change in mJOA at follow-up, both of the
10 articles addressing anterior surgical options for the myelo- 2 studies considering this outcome documented improvement
pathic patient, Shamji et al26 demonstrated similar trajec- with both surgeries at long-term follow-up. With respect to
tories of neurological recovery for patients managed by these neck pain outcomes, in all 4 of the included studies, no signif-
various options, although sagittal correction and neck pain scores icant difference was noted between the surgical groups at a
were best among the multiple discectomy cohort and worst variety of outcome points. The rate of reoperation was found
among the corpectomy cohort. A similar incidence of periop- to be higher in the laminectomy and fusion vs laminoplasty
erative complications was noted among the different proce- groups (15% vs 0%, 27% vs 13%, and 5% vs 4%, respectively)
dures for pseudoarthrosis, dysphagia, and infection. The strong in 2 out of 3 studies exploring this outcome, with profile of
recommendations arising from this systematic review were that cause for reoperation found to differ little between the groups.
when pathoanatomically appropriate with minimal retrovertebral The authors concluded: “At present time, the available liter-
disease, multiple discectomy should be selected over hybrid or ature supports that both laminectomy and fusion, as well as
corpectomy procedures; and when pathanatomically appropriate laminoplasy, can be effective and safe in the treatment of DCM;
with significant retrovertebral disease, hybrid should be selected however, no definitive comment can be made about the relative
over corpectomy procedure. efficacy of these two approaches. A properly powered RCT will
be needed in the coming years to more definitively address
Laminoplasty vs Laminectomy and Fusion this question.”29
Although multilevel laminectomy was historically the
most popular posterior operation for the treatment of
DCM, the documentation of relatively high rates (15%- Minimally Invasive/Alternate Procedures
20%) of postlaminectomy kyphosis27 have led to the gradual In addition to the more commonly performed proce-
abandonment of this approach and to the nearly uniform dures outlined above, a number of alternative and, in some
adoption of one of 2 procedures when considering a posterior cases, minimally invasive procedures have been described
operation: laminectomy and fusion or laminoplasty. Both of throughout the literature. These include skip laminectomies and
these operations are commonly employed in the setting of tubular/endoscopic decompressions.
DCM wherein there are multiple levels of stenosis (typically ≥3) Skip cervical laminectomy, first described by Shirashi in
with preservation of cervical lordosis. Several studies have been 2002,30 involves alternating between standard complete laminec-
completed over the last decade comparing these 2 procedures. tomies and partial laminectomies when decompressing the
In 2012, surgeons from the University of Miami published a cervical spine from a posterior approach. In theory, this approach
small prospective study in which they randomized 16 patients allows for decompression of the spinal cord in regions of greatest
with DCM to laminectomy and fusion (7 patients) or lamino- stenosis, while allowing for preservation of the posterior cervical
plasty (9 patients).28 With respect to eligibility, investigators tension band, thereby limiting the risk of postlaminectomy
included patients older than 35, with clinical myelopathy in the kyphosis, without performing an instrumented fusion. One
setting of cervical spondylosis, without kyphosis, and at least prospective study, in which patients were randomly allocated
3 levels of spinal cord compression. At 1-year follow-up, while to treatment arms depending on the month of their presen-
the laminectomy and fusion group experienced nonsignificant tation, compared skip laminectomy to double open door lamino-
improvements in mJOA, Nurick, NDI, neck pain, and SF-36 plasty.31 Although there were significant methodological issues,
scores, the laminoplasty group achieved significant improvement the authors followed 41 patients up to a minimum of 1-year
in Nurick, SF-36, and NDI scores, in addition to nonsignificant postop, finding no significant difference in JOA score recovery,
improvements in mJOA and neck pain scores at the same time neck pain, cervical range of motion, or complications between
point. Those undergoing laminectomy and fusion had signif- the treatment groups. Two other prospective cohort studies
icantly greater enlargement in canal diameter but significantly comparing skip laminectomy to laminoplasty have yielded similar
reduced cervical range of motion as compared to the lamino- results, with the 1 exception that both of these studies associated
plasty group. While significant given the randomized nature of skip laminectomies with improved postoperative cervical range of
treatment allocation, this study has several weaknesses including motion as compared to laminoplasty.32,33

NEUROSURGERY VOLUME 80 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2017 Supplement | S39

WILSON ET AL

In addition to standard midline open surgical techniques, agents in order to maximize the potential for postoperative
minimally invasive techniques, involving a parasagittal muscle recovery. As mentioned above, glutamatergic excitotoxicity is
splitting approach, have also been described in recent years. Using an important factor in the pathobiology of DCM, resulting
this approach, different authors have described the use of tubular in an expanded zone of neural tissue injury. Riluzole is a
dilator systems, classically used for MIS lumbar decompression or sodium channel-blocking drug, FDA approved for the treatment
cervical foraminotomies, as well as microendoscopic systems to of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which has shown to reduce
achieve a posterior decompression of the cervical spinal cord.34,35 glutamatergic excitotoxicity and improve behavioral outcomes
While initial series report outcomes that compare favorably in animal DCM models.10,42,43 At present, a phase III multi-
to more traditional operations, larger comparative studies are center RCT (CSM Protect trial) is underway, evaluating the
necessary to properly evaluate the efficacy and safety of these impact of surgery paired with pre- and postoperative Riluzole
approaches. administration vs surgery paired with pre- and postoperative
placebo, on long-term functional outcomes.44 With a goal to
enroll 270 patients, this trial is currently nearing completion of
Alignment Considerations enrollment, with final trial results anticipated in 2017.
While the goals of surgery in the myelopathic patient have
classically been described as decompression and stabilization
of the cervical spine, emphasis has more recently been placed NONOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
on actively considering preoperative spinal alignment when
making surgical decisions. Indeed, experimental animal models In the absence of strong literature comparing operative to
of myelopathy reveal that the impact of cervical kyphosis on the nonoperative care, the effectiveness of nonoperative treatment
spinal cord includes demyelination, neuronal loss, and decreased can be evaluated through longitudinal observational studies. Six
vascular supply.36 In series of 56 and 124 prospectively followed studies were identified that reported outcomes of structured
patients, Smith et al37 and Mohanty et al,38 respectively, showed nonoperative treatment using change in JOA or mJOA scores
that myelopathy severity was correlated with worse sagittal from baseline to follow-up (mean: 29-74 months).17,22,45-48
vertical axis, the latter defining this to be most robust for both Treatment protocols differed substantially across studies and
clinical myelopathy and cord MRI T2 hyperintensity for the included continuous cervical traction, drug therapy, exercise
kyphotic patient. Further, Oshima et al39 have suggested that therapy, thermal therapy, immobilization, cervical bracing,
segmental kyphosis does predict patients with myelopathy who nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or a combination of these
will eventually neurologically progress or reach surgical inter- techniques. Reported improvements following structured nonop-
vention. erative management were minimal, with JOA/mJOA change
Correction of cervical spine deformity may provide for neuro- scores ranging from 0 to 2.3. The 2 studies that observed
logical improvement in the short term by addressing ongoing improvements in excess of the MCID of mJOA included patients
ventral cord compression as well as longitudinal tension, and, with myelopathy secondary to soft disk herniation and dynamic
in the long term, by addressing the incidence of clinically cervical myelopathy.49,50 These etiologies may respond better to
symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration. Shamji et al40 nonoperative care as soft disk herniations may spontaneously
reported on a prospective series of patients and demonstrated regress over time, and immobilization may, at least temporarily,
that patients with preoperative kyphosis exhibit a lesser degree decrease cord irritation in patients with dynamic injury to the
of neurological recovery than those with preoperative lordosis, spinal cord.
independent of whether alignment was corrected at the time There are no known harms of nonoperative care besides
of surgery. This group deteriorated more frequently as well, myelopathic deterioration. Based on 5 studies, the proportion of
particularly if approached by posterior-only surgery. Hansen and patients who ultimately convert to surgical intervention following
coworkers41 suggested in a systematic review based on low- a period of structured nonoperative treatment ranged from 23%
grade evidence, that postsurgical sagittal imbalance increases the to 54% (mean follow-up: 27-74 months).47,48,51-53
incidence of cervical radiographic adjacent segment degener-
ation. Indeed, together these findings support the maintenance
or restoration of cervical sagittal alignment at time of operative MANAGEMENT OF NONMYELOPATHIC OR
intervention for myelopathy. MINIMALLY SYMPORMATIC PATIENTS
A controversial area of management relates to the treatment
COMBINED SURGICAL AND of nonmyelopathic or minimally symptomatic patients with
PHARMACOLOGICAL TREATMENT imaging evidence of canal stenosis, cord compression, or OPLL.
In a systematic review of the literature, Wilson et al54 aimed to
At present, efforts are underway to evaluate the efficacy of determine the frequency, and timing of, symptom development
surgery combined with pharmacological neuroprotective drug in this patient population. Based on this review, 8% and 22.6% of

S40 | VOLUME 80 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2017 Supplement www.neurosurgery-online.com

 STATE OF THE ART IN DEGENERATIVE CERVICAL MYELOPATHY

those with evidence of cord compression or canal narrowing, but tively as younger patients.63 Reasons for these discrepancies
without clinical evidence of myelopathy, developed myelopathy include that the elderly (1) have reduced physiological reserves
at a median of 12 and 44 months, respectively. In patients with and may be less tolerant to the invasiveness of surgery64,65 ; (2)
evidence of OPLL, rates of disease onset ranged from 0% to may have other comorbidities that may impact their ability to
61.5% across 3 studies. perform certain activities of daily living or tasks included in a
Another objective of this review was to identify important variety of outcome tools; (3) experience age-related changes to
clinical, radiographic, and electrophysiological predictors of their spinal cord, including a decrease in synaptic and dendritic
myelopathy development. Significant predictors of myelopathy elements, number of anterior horn cells, gamma-motorneurons
development were presence of symptomatic radiculopathy and number of myelinated fibers in the corticospinal tract and
(relative risk [RR]: 3.0, 95% CI 2.0-4.4), prolonged posterior funiculus66,67 ; and/or (4) have more severe degener-
somatosensory (RR: 2.9, 95% CI 1.7-5.1) and motor-evoked ative pathology and spinal stenosis. Other potential predictors
potentials (RR: 3.2, 95% CI 1.9-5.6) and electromyography signs of surgical outcomes include smoking status, rapidity of disease
of anterior horn cell lesions (RR: 2.4, 95% CI 1.5-3.9).54 Clinical onset and progression, diabetes, various signs and symptoms
and radiographic parameters not predictive of myelopathy devel- (Babinski sign, leg spasticity, hyperreflexia, hand atrophy), and
opment included gender, a minor traumatic event, type of number of comorbidities.58,68-70 There is, however, substantial
compression (osteophytes and/or herniation), number of stenotic inconsistency in the literature as to whether these factors are
levels, pavlov or compression ratio, cross-sectional cervical spinal indeed valuable for outcome prediction.
cord area, or cervical cord hyperintensity on MRI. Unfortu- In 2013, Tetreault et al71 developed a clinical prediction rule
nately, no studies have examined the effectiveness of prophylactic to quantify a patient’s likely outcome using a combination of
surgical intervention vs nonoperative management vs a “wait and routinely collected variables. The model was developed using data
see” approach for the treatment of this patient population. As per from 278 North American patients and aimed to distinguish
the recommendations in the review discussed above, in patients between patients with mild myelopathy postoperatively (mJOA ≥
with a low risk of developing myelopathy, prophylactic surgery 16) and those with substantial residual neurological impairment
should not be offered; instead, patients should be counseled as (mJOA < 16). Based on this study, the most important predictors
to potential risks of progression, educated about relevant signs of an mJOA ≥ 16 were younger age, milder preoperative
and symptoms of myelopathy and be followed clinically. In myelopathy severity, shorter duration of symptoms, nonsmoking
contrast, patients at high risk of disease development (eg, those status, and absence of psychiatric disorders and impaired gait. The
with radiculopathy) should be offered surgical intervention or predictive performance of this model was 79% as evaluated by the
nonoperative treatment consisting of close serial follow-up or a area under the receiver operating curve, indicating good discrim-
supervised trial of structured rehabilitation. inative ability. In a second, international study, Tetreault et al72
validated their clinical prediction rule and reported similar perfor-
mance in an external sample.
OUTCOME PREDICTION
Clinical Predictors Imaging Predictors
Prediction is extremely valuable in a surgical setting as In a recent systematic review of literature, Tetreault et al73
knowledge of a patient’s likely outcome can help manage expec- summarized findings from studies that evaluated the association
tations, facilitate shared decision-making, identify strategies to between imaging characteristics and surgical outcomes. Based on
optimize results and standardize care across centers.55 Several their results, there is low-level evidence suggesting that a greater
studies have evaluated important clinical predictors of surgical number of high signal intensity (SI) segments on T2-weighted
outcomes using a variety of assessment tools.56-61 A longer images (WI), low SI change on T1WI, combined T1/T2 SI, and
duration of symptoms, more severe preoperative myelopathy a higher SI ratio are predictors of worse outcomes. In contrast,
severity, and older age are often significantly associated with worse SI grade on T2WI, compression ratio and canal diameter are not
postoperative outcomes across studies.62 predictive of surgical outcomes. Explanations for these findings
Patients with severe, chronic, and longstanding compression include that (1) a high SI on T2WI reflects a broad spectrum
experience histological damage to their spinal cord which of histological changes (edema, demyelination or ischemia, or
may or may not be reversible through surgical decompression. necrosis, myelomalacia, and cavitation) and a wide range of
Furthermore, a longer duration of symptoms increases a patient’s recuperative potentials and (2) multilevel SI, combined T1/T2
risk of neurological progression and worsening. As a result, it is SI and a higher SI ratio are all indicative of severe damage that
critical that DCM is diagnosed early; this requires that primary may be irreversible even after surgical decompression.
care physicians are able to recognize key signs and symptoms and The diagnostic and predictive value of advanced imaging
differentiate between this disease and other mimicking diagnoses. techniques are currently under investigation, including diffusion
With respect to age, the elderly may not be able to translate tensor imaging (DTI), functional MRI, magnetization transfer,
neurological improvements into functional recovery as effec- magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and myelin water fraction.74

NEUROSURGERY VOLUME 80 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2017 Supplement | S41

WILSON ET AL

TABLE 3. Overview of the Best Studied and Most Frequently Utilized Outcomes Measures in the Context of DCM

Description Psychometric properties Other

mJOA Functional impairment: 4 categories for a Demonstrates convergent and divergent Mild = 15-17
total of 18 points. validity
Upper-extremity motor function (5 points) Responsive to change (Cohen effect Moderate = 12-14
size = 1)
Lower extremity motor function (7 points) Reliability unknown (inter- and intrarater Severe < 12
reliability for the JOA are high, intraclass
correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.826)
Sensory function (3 points) Moderate internal consistency (α = 0.63) MCID = but varies based on myelopathy
Bladder function (3 points) severity (1 point for mild, 2 points for
moderate, and 3 points for severe).
Nurick Functional impairment: 6 points Demonstrates validity MCID has not been established.
0: root involvement without spinal cord Insensitive, and based solely on
dysfunction (SCD) impairment and employment status
I: signs of SCD without difficulty walking
II: difficulty with walking without effect on
employment
III: difficulty with walking with effect on
full-time employment
IV: can walk only with an aid or walker
V: chair bound or bedridden
30-meter Functional impairment: Can effectively distinguish between
walking controls and myelopathic patients
test
Patient begins seated in a chair and is Demonstrates convergent and divergent
asked to stand up, walk on a flat surface for validity
15 meters, turn around, and then walk back. High reliability, low variability between
The time required to complete this trials
distance and the number of steps taken are
recorded.
Neck Disability: 10 subscales for a total of 100 Demonstrates construct validity MCID is 7.5 in a degenerative spine
Disability points. population
Index
Assesses performance in 10 categories (0 = Fair to moderate test-retest reliability
no disability, 5 = complete disability), (ICC = 0.55)
including pain intensity, personal care, Responsive to change
lifting, reading, headaches, concentration,
work, driving, sleeping, and recreation.
Total score is multiplied by 2.
SF-36v2 General health function: 8 subscales for a Can effectively distinguish between MCID is 4.1 for physical component
total of 100 points. controls and myelopathic patients summary (PCS) and 5.7 for mental
component summary (MCS) in a
degenerative spine population.
Assesses general health on 8 subscales, Demonstrates convergent, divergent and
including physical functioning, bodily pain, predictive validity
physical role limitations, general health, Moderate test-retest reliability for all 8
vitality, social functioning, emotional role subscales (r = 0.60-0.81)
limitations and mental health. Subscales, MCS and PCS demonstrate good
internal consistency
Subscales demonstrate either a floor or
ceiling effect

S42 | VOLUME 80 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2017 Supplement www.neurosurgery-online.com

 STATE OF THE ART IN DEGENERATIVE CERVICAL MYELOPATHY

Three studies have evaluated the association between surgical Disclosure

outcomes and DTI features such as fractional anisotropy (FA) The authors have no personal, financial, or institutional interest in any of the
and fiber tract ratio.75-77 Across studies, a higher FA was highly drugs, materials, or devices described in this article.
correlated with improvements on the NDI but not the Nurick
grade, postoperative mJOA, or the mental or physical component
scores of the SF-36. Furthermore, a higher FA was predictive REFERENCES
of an mJOA recovery rate >50%. This association is likely due 1. Tetreault L, Goldstein CL, Arnold P, et al. Degenerative cervical
to the fact that highly anisotropic diffusion (ie, a higher FA) myelopathy: a spectrum of related disorders affecting the aging spine. Neurosurgery.
reflects highly oriented axonal membranes, myelin sheaths, and 2015;77(suppl 4):S51-S67.
2. Kalsi-Ryan S, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: the
less damage.74 In a third study by Nakamura et al,76 the fiber clinical phenomenon and the current pathobiology of an increasingly prevalent and
tract ratio, defined as the number of fibers at the compressed level devastating disorder. Neuroscientist. 2013;19(4):409-421.
divided by the number of fibers at the C2-level, was correlated 3. Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Degen-
with JOA recovery rate (r = 0.6066, P = .0046); in particular, erative cervical myelopathy: epidemiology, genetics, and pathogenesis. Spine.
2015;40:E675-E693.
patients with a fiber tract ratio less than 60% typically had a 4. Wu JC, Ko CC, Yen YS, et al. Epidemiology of cervical spondylotic myelopathy
recovery rate less than 40% on the JOA.76 Future studies are and its risk of causing spinal cord injury: a national cohort study. Neurosurg Focus.
required to determine the predictive value of these techniques in 2013;35(1):E10.
5. Karadimas SK, Erwin WM, Ely CG, Dettori JR, Fehlings MG. Pathophysiology
patients treated surgically for DCM.
and natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2013;38:S21-S36.
6. Lestini WF, Wiesel SW. The pathogenesis of cervical spondylosis. Clin Orthop
Relat Res. 1989;239:69-93.
7. Rao R. Neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, and cervical myelopathy: pathophys-
EVALUATING OUTCOME iology, natural history, and clinical evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-
A:1872-1881.
Several quantitative tools have been developed to evaluate 8. Baptiste DC, Fehlings MG. Pathophysiology of cervical myelopathy. Spine J.
functional impairment, disability, and quality of life in patients 2006;6:190S-197S.
9. Karadimas SK, Moon E, Fehlings M. The sodium channel/glutamate blocker
with DCM. These tools can be used to objectively measure
riluzole is complementary to decompression in a preclinical experimental model of
baseline disease severity, evaluate the effectiveness of various inter- cervical spondylotic myelopathy: implications for translational clinical application.
ventions, and predict treatment outcomes. Table 3 provides an Neurosurgery. 2012;71:E543.
overview of commonly used outcome measures and summa- 10. Karadimas SK, Laliberte AM, Tetreault L, et al. Riluzole blocks perioperative
ischemia-reperfusion injury and enhances postdecompression outcomes in cervical
rizes their psychometric properties.78-84 In addition to these, spondylotic myelopathy. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(316):316ra194.
other tools are being developed to better characterize impairment 11. Yu WR, Karadimas S, Fehlings M. Human and animal model evidence supporting
from myelopathy, including gait analysis, hand dynamometer, a role for Cx3cr1 in mediating the inflammatory response in cervical spondylotic
and the cervical myelopathy hand measure. These instru- myelopathy. Abstract Presented at: The 2012 Society for Neuroscience meeting in
October; New Orleans; 2012.
ments may help to better diagnose mild myelopathy, detect 12. Wilson JR, Patel AA, Brodt ED, Dettori JR, Brodke DS, Fehlings MG. Genetics
subtle changes in neurological status, and identify ideal surgical and heritability of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and ossification of the posterior
candidates. longitudinal ligament: results of a systematic review. Spine. 2013;38:S123-S146.
13. Clarke E, Robinson P. Cervical myelopathy: a complication of cervical spondy-
losis. Brain. 1956;79:483-510.
14. Barnes MP, Saunders M. The effect of cervical mobility on the natural history of
cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1984;47:17-20.
CONCLUSION 15. Yoshimatsu H, Nagata K, Goto H, et al. Conservative treatment for cervical
spondylotic myelopathy. prediction of treatment effects by multivariate analysis.
Given the high prevalence of DCM in the general Spine J. 2001;1:269-273.
population, a sound understanding of pathophysiology, natural 16. Kadanka Z, Bednarik J, Novotny O, Urbanek I, Dusek L. Cervical spondy-
lotic myelopathy: conservative versus surgical treatment after 10 years. Eur Spine J.
history/predictors of progression, treatment approaches, and 2011;20:1533-1538.
associated outcome measures is a must for the modern spine 17. Shimomura T, Sumi M, Nishida K, et al. Prognostic factors for deterioration of
surgeon. At present, acknowledging the methodological limita- patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy after nonsurgical treatment. Spine.
tions of existing studies, the evidence body supports the efficacy 2007;32:2474-2479.
18. Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Kopjar B, et al. Efficacy and safety of surgical
of surgical treatment for symptomatic patients, with no one decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results of the
surgical approach preferred over another. Presently, large RCTs AOSpine North America prospective multi-center study. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
are underway investigating the relative efficacy of anterior vs 2013;95(18):1651-1658.
19. Fehlings MG, Ibrahim A, Tetreault L, et al. A global perspective on the outcomes
posterior surgical approaches, as well as the impact of surgical of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results
treatment in combination with pharmacological neuroprotective from the prospective multicenter AOSpine international study on 479 patients.
treatment on long-term clinical outcomes. Further, recently Spine. 2015;40:1322-1328.
completed clinical practice guidelines will soon be published, 20. Shamji MF, Tetreault L, Kurpad SK, et al. Change in Functional Impairment,
Disability and Quality of Life Following Operative Treatment for Degenerative Cervical
providing clinicians with a practical evidenced-based approach Myelopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Dubai, UAE: Global Spine
to the management of this patient population. Congress; 2016.

NEUROSURGERY VOLUME 80 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2017 Supplement | S43

WILSON ET AL

21. Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednanik J, et al. Approaches to spondylotic cervical 41. Hansen MA, Kim HJ, Van Alstyne EM, Skelly AC, Fehlings MG. Does postsur-
myelopathy: conservative versus surgical results in a 3-year follow-up study. Spine. gical cervical deformity affect the risk of cervical adjacent segment pathology? A
2002;27:2205-2210; discussion 2210-2211. systematic review. Spine. 2012;37:S75-S84.
22. Sampath P, Bendebba M, Davis JD, Ducker TB. Outcome of patients treated 42. Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Karadimas SK, Arnold PM, Kopjar B. Clinical evalu-
for cervical myelopathy: A prospective, multicenter study with independent clinical ation of a neuroprotective drug in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy
review. Spine. 2000;25:670-676. undergoing surgical treatment: design and rationale for the CSM-Protect trial.
23. Fehlings MG, Barry S, Kopjar B, et al. Anterior versus posterior surgical Spine. 2013;38:S68-S75.
approaches to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy: outcomes of the prospective 43. Satkunendrarajah K, Nassiri F, Karadimas SK, Lip A, Yao G, Fehlings
multicenter AOSpine North America CSM study in 264 patients. Spine. MG. Riluzole promotes motor and respiratory recovery associated with enhanced
2013;38:2247-2252. neuronal survival and function following high cervical spinal hemisection. Exp
24. Lawrence BD, Jacobs WB, Norvell DC, Hermsmeyer JT, Chapman JR, Neurol. 2016;276:59-71.
Brodke DS. Anterior versus posterior approach for treatment of cervical spondy- 44. Efficacy of Riluzole in Surgical Treatment for Cervical Spondy-
lotic myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine. 2013;38:S173-S182. lotic Myelopathy (CSM-Protect) (CSM-Protect), 2016. Available at:
25. Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Surgical Trial, 2016. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01257828. Accessed July 31, 2016.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02076113?term=02076113. Accessed 45. Kadanka Z, Bednarik J, Novotny O, Urbanek I, Dusek L. Cervical spondy-
July 15, 2016. lotic myelopathy: conservative versus surgical treatment after 10 years. Eur Spine J.
26. Shamji MF, Massicotte EM, Traynelis VC, Norvell DC, Hermsmeyer JT, 2011;20:1533-1538.
Fehlings MG. Comparison of anterior surgical options for the treatment of multi- 46. Li FN, Li ZH, Huang X, et al. The treatment of mild cervical spondylotic
level cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine. 2013;38:S195- myelopathy with increased signal intensity on T2-weighted magnetic resonance
S209. imaging. Spinal Cord. 2014;52:348-353.
27. Kaptain GJ, Simmons NE, Replogle RE, Pobereskin L. Incidence and outcome 47. Matsumoto M, Chiba K, Ishikawa M, Maruiwa H, Fujimura Y, Toyama Y.
of kyphotic deformity following laminectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Relationships between outcomes of conservative treatment and magnetic resonance
J Neurosurg. 2000;93:199-204. imaging findings in patients with mild cervical myelopathy caused by soft disc
28. Manzano GR, Casella G, Wang MY, Vanni S, Levi AD. A herniations. Spine. 2001;26:1592-1598.
prospective, randomized trial comparing expansile cervical laminoplasty and 48. Kong LD, Meng LC, Wang LF, Shen Y, Wang P, Shang ZK. Evaluation
cervical laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy. Neurosurgery. of conservative treatment and timing of surgical intervention for mild forms of
2012;70:264-277. cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Exp Therap Med. 2013;6:852-856.
29. Yoon ST, Hashimoto RE, Raich A, Shaffrey CI, Rhee JM, Riew KD. Outcomes 49. Matsumoto M, Chiba K, Ishikawa M, Maruiwa H, Fujimura Y, Toyama Y.
after laminoplasty compared with laminectomy and fusion in patients with cervical Relationships between outcomes of conservative treatment and magnetic resonance
myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine. 2013;38:S183-S194. imaging findings in patients with mild cervical myelopathy caused by soft disc
30. Shiraishi T. Skip laminectomy–a new treatment for cervical spondylotic herniations. Spine. 2001;26:1592-1598.
myelopathy, preserving bilateral muscular attachments to the spinous processes: 50. Fukui K, Kataoka O, Sho T, Sumi M. Pathomechanism, pathogenesis, and results
a preliminary report. Spine J. 2002;2:108-115. of treatment in cervical spondylotic myelopathy caused by dynamic canal stenosis.
31. Yukawa Y, Kato F, Ito K, et al. Laminoplasty and skip laminectomy for Spine. 1990;15:1148-1152.
cervical compressive myelopathy: range of motion, postoperative neck pain, 51. Fukui K, Kataoka O, Sho T, Sumi M. Pathomechanism, pathogenesis, and results
and surgical outcomes in a randomized prospective study. Spine. 2007;32: of treatment in cervical spondylotic myelopathy caused by dynamic canal stenosis.
1980-1985. Spine. 1990;15:1148-1152.
32. Sivaraman A, Bhadra AK, Altaf F, et al. Skip laminectomy and laminoplasty 52. Nakamura K, Kurokawa T, Hoshino Y, Saita K, Takeshita K, Kawaguchi
for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective study of clinical and radiologic H. Conservative treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: achievement and
outcomes. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010;23:96-100. sustainability of a level of "no disability". J Spinal Disord. 1998;11:175-179.
33. Shiraishi T, Fukuda K, Yato Y, Nakamura M, Ikegami T. Results of skip 53. Yoshimatsu H, Nagata K, Goto H, et al. Conservative treatment for cervical
laminectomy-minimum 2-year follow-up study compared with open-door lamino- spondylotic myelopathy. Prediction of treatment effects by multivariate analysis.
plasty. Spine. 2003;28:2667-2672. Spine J. 2001;1:269-273.
34. Hur JW, Kim JS, Shin MH, Ryu KS. Minimally invasive posterior cervical 54. Wilson JR, Barry S, Fischer DJ, et al. Frequency, timing, and predictors
decompression using tubular retractor: The technical note and early clinical of neurological dysfunction in the nonmyelopathic patient with cervical spinal
outcome. Surg Neurol Int. 2014;5:34. cord compression, canal stenosis, and/or ossification of the posterior longitudinal
35. Dahdaleh NS, Wong AP, Smith ZA, Wong RH, Lam SK, Fessler RG. ligament. Spine. 2013;38:S37-S54.
Microendoscopic decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurosurg 55. Tetreault L, Le D, Cote P, Fehlings M. The practical application of clinical
Focus. 2013;35(1):E8. prediction rules: a commentary using case examples in surgical patients with degen-
36. Shimizu K, Nakamura M, Nishikawa Y, Hijikata S, Chiba K, Toyama Y. Spinal erative cervical myelopathy. Global Spine J. 2015;5:457-465.
kyphosis causes demyelination and neuronal loss in the spinal cord: a new model of 56. Suzuki A, Misawa H, Simogata M, Tsutsumimoto T, Takaoka K, Nakamura
kyphotic deformity using juvenile Japanese small game fowls. Spine. 2005;30:2388- H. Recovery process following cervical laminoplasty in patients with cervical
2392. compression myelopathy: prospective cohort study. Spine. 2009;34:2874-2879.
37. Smith JS, Lafage V, Ryan DJ, et al. Association of myelopathy scores with cervical 57. Morio Y, Teshima R, Nagashima H, Nawata K, Yamasaki D, Nanjo Y. Corre-
sagittal balance and normalized spinal cord volume: analysis of 56 preoperative lation between operative outcomes of cervical compression myelopathy and MRI
cases from the AOSpine North America Myelopathy study. Spine. 2013;38:S161- of the spinal cord. Spine. 2001;26:1238-12345.
S170. 58. Kim HJ, Moon SH, Kim HS, et al. Diabetes and smoking as prognostic factors
38. Mohanty C, Massicotte EM, Fehlings MG, Shamji MF. Association of preop- after cervical laminoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1468-1472.
erative cervical spine alignment with spinal cord magnetic resonance imaging 59. Furlan JC, Kalsi-Ryan S, Kailaya-Vasan A, Massicotte EM, Fehlings MG.
hyperintensity and myelopathy severity: analysis of a series of 124 cases. Spine. Functional and clinical outcomes following surgical treatment in patients with
2015;40:11-16. cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective study of 81 cases. J Neurosurg Spine.
39. Oshima Y, Seichi A, Takeshita K, et al. Natural course and prognostic factors in 2011;14:348-355.
patients with mild cervical spondylotic myelopathy with increased signal intensity 60. Chibbaro S, Benvenuti L, Carnesecchi S, et al. Anterior cervical corpectomy for
on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Spine. 2012;37:1909-1913. cervical spondylotic myelopathy: experience and surgical results in a series of 70
40. Shamji MF, Mohanty C, Massicotte EM, Fehlings MG. The Association of consecutive patients. J Clin Neurosci. 2006;13:233-238.
Cervical Spine Alignment with Neurologic Recovery in a prospective cohort of 61. Cheng SC, Yen CH, Kwok TK, Wong WC, Mak KH. Anterior spinal fusion
patients with surgical myelopathy: analysis of a series of 124 cases. World Neurosurg. versus laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a retrospective review. J
2016;86:112-119. Orthop Surg. 2009;17:265-268.

S44 | VOLUME 80 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2017 Supplement www.neurosurgery-online.com

 STATE OF THE ART IN DEGENERATIVE CERVICAL MYELOPATHY

62. Tetreault LA, Karpova A, Fehlings MG. Predictors of outcome in patients 74. Martin AR, Aleksanderek I, Cohen-Adad J, et al. Translating state-of-the-art
with degenerative cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing surgical treatment: spinal cord MRI techniques to clinical use: A systematic review of clinical studies
results of a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(suppl 2):236-251. utilizing DTI, MT, MWF, MRS, and fMRI. Neuroimage Clin. 2016;10:192-238.
63. Nakashima H, Tetreault LA, Nagoshi N, et al. Does age affect surgical outcomes in 75. Jones JGA, Cen SY, Lebel RM, Hsieh PC, Law M. Diffusion tensor
patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy? Results from the prospective multi- imaging correlates with the clinical assessment of disease severity in cervical spondy-
center AOSpine International study on 479 patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. lotic myelopathy and predicts outcome following surgery. Am J Neuroradiol.
2016;87:734-740. 2013;34:471-478.
64. Partridge JS, Harari D, Dhesi JK. Frailty in the older surgical patient: a review. 76. Nakamura M, Fujiyoshi K, Tsuji O, et al. Clinical significance of diffusion tensor
Age Ageing. 2012;41:142-147. tractography as a predictor of functional recovery after laminoplasty in patients
65. Clegg A, Young J, Iliffe S, Rikkert MO, Rockwood K. Frailty in elderly people. with cervical compressive myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17:147-152.
Lancet. 2013;381:752-762. 77. Wen CY, Cui JL, Mak KC, Luk KD, Hu Y. Diffusion tensor imaging of
66. Terao S, Sobue G, Hashizume Y, Li M, Inagaki T, Mitsuma T. Age-related somatosensory tract in cervical spondylotic myelopathy and its link with electro-
changes in human spinal ventral horn cells with special reference to the loss of physiological evaluation. Spine J. 2014;14:1493-1500.
small neurons in the intermediate zone: a quantitative analysis. Acta Neuropathol. 78. Singh A, Tetreault L, Casey A, Laing R, Statham P, Fehlings MG. A
1996;92:109-114. summary of assessment tools for patients suffering from cervical spondylotic
67. Terao S, Sobue G, Hashizume Y, Shimada N, Mitsuma T. Age-related changes myelopathy: a systematic review on validity, reliability and responsiveness. Eur
of the myelinated fibers in the human corticospinal tract: a quantitative analysis. Spine J. 2015;24(suppl 2):209-228.
Acta Neuropathol. 1994;88:137-142. 79. Tetreault L, Goldstein CL, Arnold P, et al. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: a
68. Moussa AH, Nitta M, Symon L. The results of anterior cervical fusion in cervical spectrum of related disorders affecting the aging spine. Neurosurgery. 2015;77:S51-
spondylosis. Review of 125 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1983;68:277-288. S67.
69. Bertalanffy H, Eggert HR. Clinical long-term results of anterior discectomy 80. Kalsi-Ryan S, Singh A, Massicotte EM, et al. Ancillary outcome measures
without fusion for treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. A follow- for assessment of individuals with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine.
up of 164 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1988;90:127-135. 2013;38:S111-S122.
70. Chiles BW, 3rd, Leonard MA, Choudhri HF, Cooper PR. Cervical spondy- 81. Tetreault L, Kopjar B, Nouri A, et al. The modified Japanese Orthopaedic
lotic myelopathy: patterns of neurological deficit and recovery after anterior cervical Association scale: establishing criteria for mild, moderate and severe impairment
decompression. Neurosurgery. 1999;44:762-769; discussion 9-70. in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2016;26(1):
71. Tetreault LA, Kopjar B, Vaccaro A, et al. A clinical prediction model to determine 78-84.
outcomes in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing surgical 82. Tetreault L, Kopjar B, Cote P, Nouri A, Fehlings M. The minimum clini-
treatment: data from the prospective, multi-center AOSpine North America study. cally important difference of the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scale
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:1659-1666. in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Spine 2015;40(21):1653-1659.
72. Tetreault LA, Cote P, Kopjar B, et al. A clinical prediction model to assess surgical 83. Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Campbell MJ, Anderson PA. Neck Disability Index,
outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: internal and external short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm
validations using the prospective multicenter AOSpine North American and inter- pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit
national datasets of 743 patients. Spine J. 2015;15:388-397. after cervical spine fusion. Spine J. 2010;10:469-474.
73. Tetreault LA, Dettori JR, Wilson JR, et al. Systematic review of magnetic 84. Auffinger BM, Lall RR, Dahdaleh NS, et al. Measuring surgical outcomes in
resonance imaging characteristics that affect treatment decision making and cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy
predict clinical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. and fusion: assessment of minimum clinically important difference. PLoS One.
2013;38:S89-S110. 2013;8(6):e67408.

NEUROSURGERY VOLUME 80 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2017 Supplement | S45