Original Research

The Effect of Age on the Benefits of Early Decompression for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy

Publish date: September 20, 2018

References

1. Baptiste DC, Fehlings MG. Pathophysiology of cervical myelopathy. Spine J. 2006;6(6 Suppl.):190S-197S. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2006.04.024.

2. Emery S. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: diagnosis and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2001;9(6):376-688.

3. Matz PG, Anderson PA, Holly LT, et al. The natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11(2):104-111. doi:10.3171/2009.1.SPINE08716.

4. Tracy JA, Bartleson JD. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurologist. 2010;16(3):176-187 doi:10.1097/NRL.0b013e3181da3a29.

5. Handa Y, Kubota T, Ishii H, Sato K, Tsuchida A, Arai Y. Evaluation of prognostic factors and clinical outcome in elderly patients in whom expansive laminoplasty is performed for cervical myelopathy due to multisegmental spondylotic canal stenosis. A retrospective comparison with younger patients. J Neurosurg. 2002;96(2):173-179. doi:10.3171/spi.2002.96.2.0173.

6. Naderi S, Ozgen S, Pamir MN, Ozek MM, Erzen C. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical results and factors affecting prognosis. Neurosurgery. 1998;43(1):43-49.

7. Furlan JC, Kalsi-Ryan S, Kailaya-Vasan A, Massicotte EM, Fehlings MG. Functional and clinical outcomes following surgical treatment in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective study of 81 cases. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14(3):348-355. doi:10.3171/2010.10.SPINE091029.

8. Bertalanffy H, Eggert HR. Clinical long-term results of anterior discectomy Without fusion for treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. Acta Neurochir. 1988;90(3-4):127-135. doi:10.1007/BF01560567.

9. Heidecke V, Rainov NG, Marx T, Burkert W. Outcome in Cloward anterior fusion for degenerative cervical spinal disease. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2000;142(3):283-291.

10. Suzuki A, Misawa H, Simogata M, Tsutsumimoto T, Takaoka K, Nakamura H. Recovery process following cervical laminoplasty in patients with cervical compression myelopathy: prospective cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(26):2874-2879. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bb0e33.

11. Pumberger M, Froemel D, Aichmair A, et al. Clinical predictors of surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: an analysis of 248 patients. Bone Joint J. 2013;95B(7):966-971. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B7.31363.

12. Saunders RL, Bernini PM, Shirreffs TG Jr, Reeves AG. Central corpectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: A consecutive series with long-term follow-up evaluation. J Neurosurg. 1991;74(2):163-170. doi:10.3171/jns.1991.74.2.0163.

13. Suri A, Chabbra RP, Mehta VS, Gaikwad S, Pandey RM. Effect of intramedullary signal changes on the surgical outcome of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J. 2003;3(1):33-45. doi:10.1016/S1529-9430(02)00448-5.

14. Chagas H, Domingues F, Aversa A, Vidal Fonseca AL, de Souza JM. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: 10 years of prospective outcome analysis of anterior decompression and fusion. Surg Neurol. 2005;64 Suppl 1:S1:30-35; discussion:S1:35-36.

15. Holly LT, Matz PG, Anderson PA, et al. Clinical prognostic indicators of surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11(2):112-118. doi:10.3171/2009.1.SPINE08718.

16. Yoon ST, Raich A, Hashimoto RE, et al. Predictive factors affecting outcome after cervical laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(22 Suppl 1):S232-S252. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7eb55.

17. Ebersold M, Pare M, Quast LM. Surgical treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg. 1995;82(5):745-751. doi:10.3171/jns.1995.82.5.0745.

18. Tetreault LA, Kopjar B, Vaccaro A, et al. A clinical prediction model to determine outcomes in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing surgical treatment: data from the prospective, multi-center AOSpine North America study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(18):1659-1666. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.01323.

19. Yamazaki T, Yanaka K, Sato H, Uemura K, Tsukada A, Nose T. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical results and factors affecting outcome with special reference to age differences. Neurosurgery. 2003;52(1):122-126.

20. Lee TT, Manzano GR, Green BA. Modified open-door cervical expansive laminoplasty for spondylotic myelopathy: operative technique, outcome, and predictors for gait improvement. J Neurosurg. 1997;86(1):64-68. doi:10.3171/jns.1997.86.1.0064.

21. Karpova A, Arun R, Davis AM, et al. Predictors of surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(5):392-400. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182715bc3.

22. Fujiwara K, Ebara YK, S, Ono K. The prognosis of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989;71(3):393-398.

23. Roosen K, Grote W. Late results of operative treatment of cervical myelopathy. In: Grote W, Brock M, Clar HE, Klinger M, Nau HE, eds. Surgery of Cervical Myelopathy. Advances in Neurosurgery, vol 8. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer; 1980:69-77.

24. 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 2:236-251. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2658-z.

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is the most common acquired cause of spinal cord dysfunction in people aged >55 years.¹ It is a slowly progressive disorder usually caused by spinal cord compression and ischemia due to age-related changes in the spine and is characterized by neck pain, radicular arm pain, paresthesia, weakness, lower extremity hyperreflexia, and gait and balance abnormalities and may also present with bowel and bladder dysfunction. The majority of cases progress in a stepwise manner, but about 5% of cases decline rapidly, and the prognosis of nonoperative treatment is poor once the patient is truly myelopathic. The objective of surgery is to decompress the spinal cord before permanent damage has set in.^2-4

Several studies have attempted to describe the prognostic significance of duration of symptoms in surgical decompression of CSM. Some studies have found that there is no association with outcomes,^5-7 but most of the studies have concluded that there is an association. Several of these studies specify that duration of symptoms is significant beyond particular time points, typically of 12 months^8-12 or 24 months.^13,14 At least 2 review studies have found low evidence for the influence of symptom duration on postoperative outcomes.^15,16

Age has also been cited as an important prognostic factor in surgical decompression of CSM by some of these same studies. Only a few studies have concluded that age itself does not affect outcomes.^17-19 However, most of the studies conclude that advanced age is a significant factor. Most of these cite a cutoff of 60 years of age,^14,20 65 years of age,²¹ or 70 years of age,¹⁰ but at least 1 study has cited a cutoff as young as 40 years of age,⁹ and at least 1 other has cited 50 years of age.⁸

Most of the available literature has evaluated the effects of age and duration of symptoms separately. However, at least 2 studies have discussed the interplay between these variables, and both found that outcomes are associated with duration of symptoms only in the elderly, defined as above either 65 or 70 years of age.^5,19 This study is an attempt to clarify this relationship.

Continue to: MATERIALS AND METHODS...