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.

Department of Neurology Masaryk University and University Hospital Brno Jihlavská 20 63900 Brno Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Nurick S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain. 1972;95:87–100. doi: 10.1093/brain/95.1.87. PubMed DOI

Kato Y, Iwasaki M, Fuji T, et al. Long-term follow-up results of laminectomy for cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Neurosurg. 1998;89:217–223. doi: 10.3171/jns.1998.89.2.0217. PubMed DOI

Goto S, Mochizuki M, Watanabe T, et al. 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. 1993;291:142–153. PubMed

Hirai O, Kondo A, Aoyama I, et al. Anterior decompression surgery of aged patients with cervical myelopathy. No Shinkei Geka. 1991;19:1017–1023. PubMed

Singh A, Choi D, Crockard A. Use of walking data in assessing operative results for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: long-term follow-up and comparison with controls. Spine. 2009;34(12):1296–1300. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a09796. PubMed DOI

Matsumoto M, Chiba K, Ishikawa M, et al. Relationships between outcomes of conservative treatment and magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with mild cervical myelopathy caused by soft disc herniations. Spine; 2001;26:1592–1598. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200107150-00021. PubMed DOI

Benzel EC, Lancon J, Kesterson L, et al. Cervical laminectomy and dentate ligament section for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spin Disord; 1991;4:286–295. doi: 10.1097/00002517-199109000-00005. PubMed DOI

Dupont WD, Plummer WD (1997) PS power and sample size program available for free on the Internet. Controlled Clin Trials 18:274

Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2. NewYork: John Wiley; 1981. pp. 38–46.

Lehmann EL. Nonparametrics. Statistical methods based on ranks. San Francisco: Holden-Day; 1975.

LaRocca H. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: natural history. Spine. 1988;13:854–855. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198807000-00028. PubMed DOI

Clarke E, Robinson PK. Cervical myelopathy: a complication of cervical spondylosis. Brain. 1956;79:483–510. doi: 10.1093/brain/79.3.483. PubMed DOI

Epstein JA, Janin Y, Carras R, et al. 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. 1982;61:89–104. doi: 10.1007/BF01740074. PubMed DOI

Montgomery DM, Brower RS. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clinical syndrome and natural history. Orthop Clin North Am. 1992;23:487–493. PubMed

Sadasivan KK, Reddy RP, Albright JA. The natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Yale J Biol Med. 1993;66:235–242. PubMed PMC

Symon L, Lavender P. The surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurology. 1967;17(2):117–127. PubMed

Nurick S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain. 1972;95:87–100. doi: 10.1093/brain/95.1.87. PubMed DOI

Shimomura T, Sumi M, Nishida K, et al. Prognostic factors for deterioration of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy after nonsurgical treatment. Spine. 2007;32:2474–2479. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181573aee. PubMed DOI

Lees F, Turner JWA. Natural history and prognosis of cervical spondylosis. Br Med J. 1963;2:1607–1610. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.5373.1607. PubMed DOI PMC

Utley D, Monro P. Neurosurgery for cervical spondylosis. Br J Hosp Med. 1989;42:62–70. PubMed

Rowland LP. Surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Time for a controlled trial. Neurology. 1992;42:5–13. PubMed

Law MD, Bernhardt M, White AA. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a review of surgical indications and decisions making. Yale J Biol Med. 1994;66:165–177. PubMed PMC

Braakman R. Management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1994;57:257–263. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.57.3.257. PubMed DOI PMC

Ebersold MJ, Pare MC, Quast CM. Surgical treatment for cervical spondylitic myelopathy. J Neurosurg. 1995;82:745–751. doi: 10.3171/jns.1995.82.5.0745. PubMed DOI

Yonebobu K, Hosono N, Iwasaki M, et al. Neurologic complications of surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 1991;16:1277–1282. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199111000-00006. PubMed DOI

Gok B, Sciubba DM, McLoughlin GS, et al. Revision surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical results and outcome. Neurosurgery. 2008;63:292–298. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000320441.86936.99. PubMed DOI

Xu BS, Zhang ZL, Le Huec JC, et al. Long-term follow-up results and radiographic findings of anterior surgery with Cloward trephination for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spinal Disord Tech. 2009;22:105–113. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31816d6579. PubMed DOI

Okamoto A, Shinomiya K, Furuya K, et al. Postoperative magnetic resonance in patients with cervical myelopathy. Spine. 1991;39:263–267. PubMed

Kadanka Z, Bednarik J, Vohanka S, et al. Conservative treatment versus surgery in spondylotic cervical myelopathy: a prospective randomised study. Eur Spine. 2000;9:538–544. doi: 10.1007/s005860000132. PubMed DOI PMC

Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednarik J, et al. Approaches to spondylotic cervical myelopathy: conservative vs surgical results in a three-year follow-up study. Spine. 2002;27:2205–2211. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200210150-00003. PubMed DOI

Kadaňka Z, Mareš M, Bednařík J, et al. Predictive factors for mild forms of spondylotic cervical myelopathy treated conservatively or surgically. Eur J Neurol. 2005;12(1):16–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2004.00947.x. PubMed DOI

Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Development and Natural History [AO Spine RECODE-DCM Research Priority Number 2]