A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Patients With Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Recommendations for Patients With Mild, Moderate, and Severe Disease and Nonmyelopathic Patients With Evidence of Cord Compression

Michael G Fehlings, Lindsay A Tetreault, K Daniel Riew, James W Middleton, Bizhan Aarabi, Paul M Arnold, Darrel S Brodke, Anthony S Burns, Simon Carette, Robert Chen, Kazuhiro Chiba, Joseph R Dettori, Julio C Furlan, James S Harrop, Langston T Holly, Sukhvinder Kalsi-Ryan, Mark Kotter, Brian K Kwon, Allan R Martin, James Milligan, Hiroaki Nakashima, Narihito Nagoshi, John Rhee, Anoushka Singh, Andrea C Skelly, Sumeet Sodhi, Jefferson R Wilson, Albert Yee, Jeffrey C Wang, Michael G Fehlings, Lindsay A Tetreault, K Daniel Riew, James W Middleton, Bizhan Aarabi, Paul M Arnold, Darrel S Brodke, Anthony S Burns, Simon Carette, Robert Chen, Kazuhiro Chiba, Joseph R Dettori, Julio C Furlan, James S Harrop, Langston T Holly, Sukhvinder Kalsi-Ryan, Mark Kotter, Brian K Kwon, Allan R Martin, James Milligan, Hiroaki Nakashima, Narihito Nagoshi, John Rhee, Anoushka Singh, Andrea C Skelly, Sumeet Sodhi, Jefferson R Wilson, Albert Yee, Jeffrey C Wang

Abstract

Study design: Guideline development.

Objectives: The objective of this study is to develop guidelines that outline how to best manage (1) patients with mild, moderate, and severe myelopathy and (2) nonmyelopathic patients with evidence of cord compression with or without clinical symptoms of radiculopathy.

Methods: Five systematic reviews of the literature were conducted to synthesize evidence on disease natural history; risk factors of disease progression; the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of nonoperative and surgical management; the impact of preoperative duration of symptoms and myelopathy severity on treatment outcomes; and the frequency, timing, and predictors of symptom development. A multidisciplinary guideline development group used this information, and their clinical expertise, to develop recommendations for the management of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM).

Results: Our recommendations were as follows: (1) "We recommend surgical intervention for patients with moderate and severe DCM." (2) "We suggest offering surgical intervention or a supervised trial of structured rehabilitation for patients with mild DCM. If initial nonoperative management is pursued, we recommend operative intervention if there is neurological deterioration and suggest operative intervention if the patient fails to improve." (3) "We suggest not offering prophylactic surgery for non-myelopathic patients with evidence of cervical cord compression without signs or symptoms of radiculopathy. We suggest that these patients be counseled as to potential risks of progression, educated about relevant signs and symptoms of myelopathy, and be followed clinically." (4) "Non-myelopathic patients with cord compression and clinical evidence of radiculopathy with or without electrophysiological confirmation are at a higher risk of developing myelopathy and should be counselled about this risk. We suggest offering either surgical intervention or nonoperative treatment consisting of close serial follow-up or a supervised trial of structured rehabilitation. In the event of myelopathic development, the patient should be managed according to the recommendations above."

Conclusions: These guidelines will promote standardization of care for patients with DCM, decrease the heterogeneity of management strategies and encourage clinicians to make evidence-informed decisions.

Keywords: cervical spondylotic myelopathy; degenerative cervical myelopathy; guidelines; spinal cord compression.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

    1. Fehlings MG, Tetreault LA, Wilson JR, Skelly AC. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: current state of the art and future directions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(22 suppl):S1–S8. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7e9e0.
    1. Fehlings MG, Tetreault L, Nater A, et al. The aging of the global population: the changing epidemiology of disease and spinal disorders. Neurosurgery. 2015;77(suppl 4):S1–S5 doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000953.
    1. Tetreault L, Kopjar B, Nouri A, et al. The modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale: establishing criteria for mild, moderate and severe impairment in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2017;26:78–84. doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4660-8.
    1. Shiffman RN, Michel G. Toward improved guideline quality: using the COGS statement with GEM. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004;107:159–163.
    1. Shiffman RN, Shekelle P, Overhage JM, Slutsky J, Grimshaw J, Deshpande AM. Standardized reporting of clinical practice guidelines: a proposal from the Conference on Guideline Standardization. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:493–498.
    1. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:401–406.
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews (AHRQ Publication No. 10(14)-EHC063-EF). Rockville MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013.
    1. Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:719–725. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.013.
    1. Andrews JC, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation’s direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:726–735. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.003.
    1. Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. Moving from evidence to developing recommendations in guidelines: article 11 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012;9:282–292. doi:10.1513/pats.201208-064ST.
    1. Wu JC, Ko CC, Yen YS, et al. Epidemiology of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and its risk of causing spinal cord injury: a national cohort study. Neurosurg Focus. 2013;35:E10 doi:10.3171/2013.4.FOCUS13122.
    1. Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Kopjar B, et al. Efficacy and safety of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results of the AOSpine North America prospective multi-center study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:1651–1658. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.00589.
    1. Fehlings MG, Jha NK, Hewson SM, Massicotte EM, Kopjar B, Kalsi-Ryan S. Is surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy cost-effective? A cost-utility analysis based on data from the AOSpine North America prospective CSM study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17:89–93. doi:10.3171/2012.6.aospine111069.
    1. Witiw CD, Tetreault LA, Smieliauskas F, Kopjar B, Massicotte EM, Fehlings MG. Surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy: a patient centered quality of life and health economic evaluation. Spine J. 2017;17:15–25. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2016.10.015.
    1. 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;34:2874–2879. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bb0e33.
    1. Karpova A, Arun R, Davis AM, et al. Predictors of surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:392–400. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182715bc3.
    1. Cheung WY, Arvinte D, Wong YW, Luk KD, Cheung KM. Neurological recovery after surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective study. Int Orthop. 2008;32:273–278. doi:10.1007/s00264-006-0315-4.
    1. 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;95:1659–1666. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.01323.
    1. Chibbaro S, Mirone G, Makiese O, George B. Multilevel oblique corpectomy without fusion in managing cervical myelopathy: long-term outcome and stability evaluation in 268 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;10:458–465. doi:10.3171/2009.1.spine08186.
    1. Setzer M, Vrionis FD, Hermann EJ, Seifert V, Marquardt G. Effect of apolipoprotein E genotype on the outcome after anterior cervical decompression and fusion in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11:659–666. doi:10.3171/2009.7.spine08667.
    1. Matsumoto M, Chiba K, Ishikawa M, Maruiwa H, Fujimura Y, Toyama Y. Relationships between outcomes of conservative treatment and magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with mild cervical myelopathy caused by soft disc herniations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26:1592–1598.
    1. Nouri A, Tetreault L, Zamorano JJ, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting surgical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:171–178. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000678.
    1. Karadimas S, Erwin W, Ely C, Dettori JR, Fehlings MG. Pathophysiology and natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(22 suppl 1):S21–S36. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f2c3.
    1. Rhee JM, Shamji MF, Erwin WM, et al. Nonoperative management of cervical myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(22 suppl 1):S55–S67. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f41d.
    1. Kadanka Z, Bednarik J, Novotny O, Urbánek I, Dušek L. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: conservative versus surgical treatment after 10 years. Eur Spine J. 2011;20:1533–1538.
    1. Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednanik J, et al. Approaches to spondylotic cervical myelopathy: conservative versus surgical results in a 3-year follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27:2205–2210; discussion 2210-2211.
    1. Fehlings MG, Ibrahim A, Tetreault L, et al. A global perspective on the outcomes of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results from the prospective multicenter AOSpine international study on 479 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:1322–1328. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000988
    1. Hirai T, Okawa A, Arai Y, et al. Middle-term results of a prospective comparative study of anterior decompression with fusion and posterior decompression with laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36: 1940–1947 DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181feeeb2
    1. Hu W, Shen X, Sun T, Zhang X, Cui Z, Wan J. Laminar reclosure after single open-door laminoplasty using titanium miniplates versus suture anchors. Orthopedics. 2014;37:e71–e78.
    1. Kimura A, Endo T, Inoue H, Seichi A. Preoperative predictors of patient satisfaction with outcome after cervical laminoplasty. Global Spine J. 2014;4:77–82. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1366973.
    1. Lian XF, Xu JG, Zeng BF, Zhou W, Kong WQ, Hou TS. Noncontiguous anterior decompression and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective randomized control clinical study. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:713–719.
    1. Moussellard HP, Meyer A, Biot D, Khiami F, Sariali E. Early neurological recovery course after surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective study with 2-year follow-up using three different functional assessment tests. Eur Spine J. 2014;23:1508–1514 doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3315-x.
    1. Ohashi M, Yamazaki A, Watanabe K, Katsumi K, Shoji H. Two-year clinical and radiological outcomes of open-door cervical laminoplasty with prophylactic bilateral C4-C5 foraminotomy in a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39:721–727. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000000251.
    1. Ying Z, Xinwei W, Jing Z, et al. Cervical corpectomy with preserved posterior vertebral wall for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a randomized control clinical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:1482–1487. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318068b30a.
    1. Fukui K, Kataoka O, Sho T, Sumi M. Pathomechanism, pathogenesis, and results of treatment in cervical spondylotic myelopathy caused by dynamic canal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990;15:1148–1152.
    1. Li FN, Li ZH, Huang X, et al. The treatment of mild cervical spondylotic myelopathy with increased signal intensity on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Spinal Cord. 2014;52:348–353. doi:10.1038/sc.2014.11.
    1. Yoshimatsu H, Nagata K, Goto H, et al. Conservative treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy, prediction of treatment effects by multivariate analysis. Spine J. 2001;1:269–273.
    1. Wilson JR, Barry S, Fischer DJ, et al. Frequency, timing, and predictors of neurological dysfunction in the nonmyelopathic patient with cervical spinal cord compression, canal stenosis, and/or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(22 suppl 1):S37–S54. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f2e7.
    1. Kalsi-Ryan S, Singh A, Massicotte EM, et al. Ancillary outcome measures for assessment of individuals with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(22 suppl 1):S111–S122. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f499.
    1. Shimomura T, Sumi M, Nishida K, et al. Prognostic factors for deterioration of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy after nonsurgical treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:2474–2479.
    1. Sumi M, Miyamoto H, Suzuki T, Kaneyama S, Kanatani T, Uno K. Prospective cohort study of mild cervical spondylotic myelopathy without surgical treatment. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16:8–14. doi:10.3171/2011.8.spine11395.
    1. 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.
    1. Oshima Y, Seichi A, Takeshita K, et al. Natural course and prognostic factors in patients with mild cervical spondylotic myelopathy with increased signal intensity on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:1909–1913. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318259a65b.
    1. Kong LD, Meng LC, Wang LF, Shen Y, Wang P, Shang ZK. Evaluation of conservative treatment and timing of surgical intervention for mild forms of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Exp Ther Med. 2013;6:852–856. doi:10.3892/etm.2013.1224.
    1. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. Development of the AGREE II, part 2: assessment of validity of items and tools to support application. CMAJ. 2010;182:E472–E478. doi:10.1503/cmaj.091716.
    1. Shekelle P, Woolf S, Grimshaw JM, Schünemann HJ, Eccles MP. Developing clinical practice guidelines: reviewing, reporting, and publishing guidelines; updating guidelines; and the emerging issues of enhancing guideline implementability and accounting for comorbid conditions in guideline development. Implement Sci. 2012;7:62.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever