INTRODUCTION: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) can lead to significant disability through a spectrum of clinical manifestations ranging from dexterity loss to more profound weakness, incontinence and paralysis. AIM: To determine the outcome of surgical decompression for CSM and investigate pre-operative predictors of outcome. METHODS: Prospectively collected data on all patients who underwent decompressive surgery for CSM and completed 12-month follow-up were reviewed. Data on age, MRI T1 and T2 signal changes pre-operatively, surgical approach and the Nurick's Myelopathy Grade (NMG) was analysed pre-operatively and 1 year post-surgery. RESULTS: Data on 93 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for CSM were reviewed. Median age was 62 (23-94) years and 59% were male. The median follow-up was 37 (17-88) months. The approach was anterior in 38 (42%) patients, posterior in 55 (58%); improvement was not significantly different when the two groups were compared. The number of levels decompressed increased with age (p value <0.0001). The group with a pre-operatively high signal on T1-weighted MRI images [n = 28 (30%)] was associated with less neurological recovery post-operatively compared to the patients with a normal T1 cord signal. None of the patients deteriorated neurologically post-operatively, while 66% improved by at least one NMG. CONCLUSION: Surgical decompressions for CSM stop the progress of symptoms at 12 months post-surgery and may result in a significant improvement of NMG in two-thirds of the patients. Changes in the T1-weighted MRI images predict worse outcomes following surgery.

Department of Abdominal Thoracic Surgery and Traumatology 1st Medical School Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology 3rd Medical School Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Royal Derby Hospital Uttoxeter Road Derby DE22 3NE UK

See more in PubMed

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Dec;(381):129-36 PubMed

Brain. 1972;95(1):87-100 PubMed

J Neurosurg. 2000 Oct;93(2 Suppl):199-204 PubMed

J Neurosurg. 2003 Sep;99(2 Suppl):162-8 PubMed

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Oct 15;38(22 Suppl 1):S21-36 PubMed

J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 Mar;14(3):348-55 PubMed

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Apr 1;30(7):756-9 PubMed

Spine J. 2003 Jan-Feb;3(1):33-45 PubMed

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Aug 1;24(15):1527-31; discussion 1531-2 PubMed

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Jul;88(7):1619-40 PubMed

Neuroscientist. 2013 Aug;19(4):409-21 PubMed

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Jun 1;26(11):1238-45 PubMed

Eur Spine J. 2013 Nov;22(11):2552-7 PubMed

J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Jan;6(1):17-22 PubMed

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Jul 1;26(13):1443-7; discussion 1448 PubMed

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Oct 1;28(19):2209-14 PubMed

Spine J. 2010 Jun;10(6):475-85 PubMed

J Neurosurg Spine. 2009 Aug;11(2):104-11 PubMed

Brain. 1956 Sep;79(3):483-510 PubMed

J Neurosurg. 1997 Jan;86(1):64-8 PubMed

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Dec 15;38(26):2247-52 PubMed

Yale J Biol Med. 1993 May-Jun;66(3):235-42 PubMed

J Neurosurg. 1998 Aug;89(2):217-23 PubMed

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Oct 15;38(22 Suppl 1):S173-82 PubMed

Eur Spine J. 2011 Dec;20(12):2267-74 PubMed

J Neurosurg Spine. 2010 Jan;12(1):59-65 PubMed

Eur Spine J. 2015 Apr;24 Suppl 2:236-51 PubMed

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Mar 15;25(6):670-6 PubMed

Neurosurgery. 1999 Apr;44(4):762-9; discussion 769-70 PubMed

Eur Spine J. 2011 Feb;20(2):224-35 PubMed

Surg Neurol. 1997 Sep;48(3):237-45 PubMed

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Nov 15;25(22):2893-8 PubMed

Eur Spine J. 2013 Jul;22(7):1583-93 PubMed