Volume 1 | Issue 1 | October 2020-March 2021 | page: 13-18 | Subir N. Jhaveri, Samir J. Patel, Sharan S. Jhaveri, Nancy Modi, Jignasu Yagnik
Authors: Subir N. Jhaveri , Samir J. Patel , Sharan S. Jhaveri , Nancy Modi , Jignasu Yagnik 
 Subir Jhaveri’s Spine Hospital, Satellite, Ahmedabad, Gujrat, India.
 Smt. NHL Municipal Medical College, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad, Gujrat, India.
 Indukaka Ipcowala Institute of Management (I2IM), Charotar University of Science & Technology (CHARUSAT), Changa, Anand, Gujrat, India.
Address of Correspondence
Dr. Subir Jhaveri,
Spine Hospital, First floor, Jyoti Plaza, Shyamal cross roads, 132 feet ring road, Satellite, Ahmedabad, Gujrat, India.
Study Design: This was a retrospective case series.
Objective: The objective of the study was to assess the surgical outcomes of patients with cervical myelopathy, using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ).
Summary of Background Data: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a leading cause of morbidity. Patients present with spasticity, gait imbalance, and loss of fine motor function. Most patients present early; however, few manage with disability for years and present late.
Methods: Fifty-two consecutive patients underwent surgery for cervical myelopathy from 2008 to 2013; however, detailed follow-up was available in only 42 patients. Thirty-nine patients were ambulatory, while 3 were non-ambulatory at the outset. Nineteen patients underwent anterior surgery and 23 patients underwent posterior surgery. Frankel, Nurick grades, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and JOACMEQ scores were recorded at time of admission, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks, and then annually. Outcomes at final follow-up were included for statistical analysis.
Results: Thirty-four (81%) patients improved, 4 (9.5%) patients remained static, and 4 (9.5%) patients worsened according to Nurick scale. Nurick grades improved from 3.52 to 1.64. Mean NDI scores improved from 42.28 to 20.28. Analyzing the JOACMEQ scores, cervical spine function improved in 15 (35.7%), upper extremity (UE) function improved in 33 (78.6%) patients, while lower extremity (LE) function improved in 32 (76.2%) patients. Bladder function improved in 17 (40.47%). Quality of life improved in 37 (88.1%) patients. LE improved more than UE, in the younger (<45 years) group, and in those with subaxial myelopathy. Pre-operative symptoms greater than 12 months had a negative impact on outcome. Pre-operative neurology, approach, and instrumentation did not impact outcomes. Four (9.5%) patients developed major neurological deficit, 4 (9.5%) patients had C5 deltoid palsy, while 1 patient had recurrent laryngeal palsy.
Conclusion: Surgical results of DCM are highly satisfactory, even in late cases. LE improved more than UE in subaxial cases and in younger individuals. Surgical intervention within 12 months of symptoms affects outcome positively.
Keywords: Degenerative cervical myelopathy, cervical spondylotic myelopathy, surgical outcomes, JOA scores, JOACMEQ scores, ossified posterior longitudinal ligament, cervical discectomy, cervical laminectomy, iliac crest bone graft, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, artificial cervical disc replacement, lateral mass screws.
Level of Evidence: 4.
1. 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;14:348-55.
2. Kaminsky SB, Clark CR, Traynelis VC. Operative treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy. A comparison of laminectomy and laminoplasty at five year average follow-up. Iowa Ortho J 2004;24:95-105.
3. Fukui M, Chiba K, Kawakami M, Kikuchi SI. An outcome measure for patients with cervical myelopathy: Japanese orthopaedic association cervical myelopathy evaluation questionnaire (JOACMEQ): Part 1. J Orthop Sci 2007;12:227-40.
4. Chang V, Lu DC, Hoffmann H, Buchanan C, Holly LT. Clinical results of cervical laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy in 58 consecutive patients. Surg Neurol Int 2014;16:S133-7.
5. Al-Tamimi YZ, Guilfoyle M, Seeley H, Laing J. Measurement of long-term outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated surgically. Eur Spine J 2013;22:2552-7.
6. Morio Y, Teshima R, Nagashima H, Nawata K, Yamasaki D, Nanjo Y. Correlation between operative outcomes of cervical compression myelopathy and MRI of the spinal cord. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:1238-45.
7. Karpova A, Arun R, Davis AM, Kulkarni AV, Massicotte EM, Mikulis DJ, et al. Predictors of surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:392-400.
8. Boakye M, Patil CG, Santarelli J, Ho C, Tian W, Lad SP. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Complications and outcomes after spinal fusion. Neurosurgery 2008;62:455-62.
9. Sakaura H, Hosono N, Mukai Y, Iwasaki M, Yoshikawa H. C3-6 laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy maintains satisfactory long-term surgical outcomes. Global Spine J 2014;4:169-74.
10. Son DK, Son DW, Song GS, Lee SW. Effectiveness of the laminoplasty in the elderly patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Korean J Spine 2014;11:39-44.
11. Fehlings MG, Barry S, Kopjar B, Yoon ST, Arnold P, Massicotte EM, et al. Anterior versus posterior surgical approaches to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Outcomes of the prospective multicenter AOSpine North America CSM study in 264 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:2247-52.
12. Lawrence BD, Jacobs WB, Norvell DC, Hermsmeyer JT, Chapman JR, Brodke DS. Anterior versus posterior approach for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: A systematic review. Spine 2013;38:S173-82.
13. Gao R, Yang L, Chen H, Liu Y, Liang L, Yuan W. Long term results of anterior corpectomy and fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. PLoS One 2012;7:e34811.
14. Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, Maruyama T, Wakano K. Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1981;6:354-64.
15. Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Kopjar B, Yoon ST, Arnold PM, Massicotte EM, 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;95:1651-8.
16. Chiba K, Toyama Y, Matsumoto M, Maruiwa H, Watanabe M, Hirabayashi K. Segmental motor paralysis after expansive open-door laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:2108-15.
17. Dai L, Ni B, Yuan W, Jia L. Radiculopathy after laminectomy for cervical compression myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80:846-9.
18. Satomi K, Ogawa J, Ishii Y, Hirabayashi K. Short-term complications and long-term results of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine J 2001;1:26-30.
19. Chiba K, Ogawa Y, Ishii K, Takaishi H, Nakamura M, Maruiwa H, et al. Long-term results of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy–average 14-year follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:2998-3005.
20. Tanaka N, Nakanishi K, Fujiwara Y, Kamei N, Ochi M. Postoperative segmental C5 palsy after cervical laminoplasty may occur without intraoperative nerve injury: A prospective study with transcranial electric motor-evoked potentials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:3013-7.
|How to Cite this Article: Jhaveri SN, Patel SJ, Jhaveri SS, Modi N, Yagnik J| Surgical Outcomes in Patients Operated for Cervical Myelopathy using Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire| Back Bone: The Spine Journal | October 2020-March 2021; 1(1): 13-18.|