Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical Approach Decision-Making

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy and Radiculopathy

  • 1382 Accesses

Abstract

Surgical approach decision-making in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy should be performed in a stepwise, systematic manner. Due to the heterogeneity of clinical presentations and radiographic findings, the correct surgical approach must be addressed on an individual basis. Based on the current systematic literature and a better understanding of cervical biomechanics and alignment parameters, surgical outcomes have improved. There is evidence that provides direction in choosing a particular surgical approach, but in some instances, there is equipoise between anterior and posterior surgical strategies. Case examples are provided to highlight particular surgical decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Klineberg E. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a review of the evidence. Orthop Clin North Am. 2010;41:193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2009.12.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.6.AOSPINE111069.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.10.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hukuda S, Mochizuki T, Ogata M, Shichikawa K, Shimomura Y. Operations for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. A comparison of the results of anterior and posterior procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1985;67:609–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boden SD, McCowin PR, Davis DO, Dina TS, Mark AS, Wiesel S. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the cervical spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:1178–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kalsi-Ryan S, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy the clinical phenomenon and the current pathobiology of an increasingly prevalent and devastating disorder. Neuroscientist. 2013;19:409–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858412467377.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gillis CC, Kaszuba MC, Traynelis VC. Cervical radiographic parameters in 1- and 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25:421–9. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.2.SPINE151056.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Carette S, Fehlings MG. Clinical practice. Cervical radiculopathy. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:392–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp043887.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Puttlitz CM, DiAngelo DJ. Cervical spine arthroplasty biomechanics. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2005;16:589–594, v. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2005.07.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ames CP, Blondel B, Scheer JK, Schwab FJ, Le Huec J-C, Massicotte EM, et al. Cervical radiographical alignment: comprehensive assessment techniques and potential importance in cervical myelopathy. Spine. 2013;38:S149–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f449.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Smith JS, Klineberg E, Shaffrey CI, Lafage V, Schwab FJ, Protopsaltis T, et al. Assessment of surgical treatment strategies for moderate to severe cervical spinal deformity reveals marked variation in approaches, osteotomies, and fusion levels. World Neurosurg. 2016;91:228–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.04.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Karadimas SK, Erwin WM, Ely CG, Dettori JR, Fehlings MG. Pathophysiology and natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2013;38:S21–36. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f2c3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rhee JM, Shamji MF, Erwin WM, Bransford RJ, Yoon ST, Smith JS, et al. Nonoperative management of cervical myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine. 2013;38:S55–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f41d.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00589.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Choi G, Arbatti NJ, Modi HN, Prada N, Kim JS, Kim HJ, et al. Transcorporeal tunnel approach for unilateral cervical radiculopathy: a 2-year follow-up review and results. Minim Invasive Neurosurg MIN. 2010;53:127–31. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1249681.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hacker RJ, Miller CG. Failed anterior cervical foraminotomy. J Neurosurg. 2003;98:126–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7eaaf.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Liu W-J, Hu L, Chou P-H, Wang J-W, Kan W-S. Comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy: a systematic review. Orthop Surg. 2016;8:425–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12285.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Bono CM, Ghiselli G, Gilbert TJ, Kreiner DS, Reitman C, Summers JT, et al. An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders. Spine J. 2011;11:64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2010.10.023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fraser JF, Härtl R. Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a metaanalysis of fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6:298–303. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2007.6.4.2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jiang L, Tan M, Dong L, Yang F, Yi P, Tang X, et al. Comparison of anterior decompression and fusion with posterior laminoplasty for multilevel cervical compressive myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28:282–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000317.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fehlings MG, Smith JS, Kopjar B, Arnold PM, Yoon ST, Vaccaro AR, et al. Perioperative and delayed complications associated with the surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy based on 302 patients from the AOSpine North America Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16:425–32. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.1.SPINE11467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Liu B, Ma W, Zhu F, Guo C, Yang W. Comparison between anterior and posterior decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: subjective evaluation and cost analysis. Orthop Surg. 2012;4:47–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-7861.2011.00169.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Ghogawala Z, Martin B, Benzel EC, Dziura J, Magge SN, Abbed KM, et al. Comparative effectiveness of ventral vs dorsal surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurosurgery. 2011;68:622–630–631. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31820777cf.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Whitmore RG, Schwartz JS, Simmons S, Stein SC, Ghogawala Z. Performing a cost analysis in spine outcomes research: comparing ventral and dorsal approaches for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurosurgery. 2012;70:860–7; discussion 867. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182367272.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sasso RC, Ruggiero RA, Reilly TM, Hall PV. Early reconstruction failures after multilevel cervical corpectomy. Spine. 2003;28:140–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000041590.90290.56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vaccaro AR, Falatyn SP, Scuderi GJ, Eismont FJ, McGuire RA, Singh K, et al. Early failure of long segment anterior cervical plate fixation. J Spinal Disord. 1998;11:410–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Shamji MF, Massicotte EM, Traynelis VC, Norvell DC, Hermsmeyer JT, Fehlings MG. Comparison of anterior surgical options for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine. 2013;38:S195–209. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7eb27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kasliwal MK, Traynelis VC. Motion preservation in cervical spine: review. J Neurosurg Sci. 2012;56:13–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Turel MK, Kerolus MG, Adogwa O, Traynelis VC. Cervical arthroplasty: what does the labeling say? Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42:E2. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.11.FOCUS16414.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sasso WR, Smucker JD, Sasso MP, Sasso RC. Long-term clinical outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Spine. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001746.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Shamji MF, Cook C, Pietrobon R, Tackett S, Brown C, Isaacs RE. Impact of surgical approach on complications and resource utilization of cervical spine fusion: a nationwide perspective to the surgical treatment of diffuse cervical spondylosis. Spine J. 2009;9:31–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2008.07.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kaptain GJ, Simmons NE, Replogle RE, Pobereskin L. Incidence and outcome of kyphotic deformity following laminectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg. 2000;93:199–204.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Edwards CC, Riew KD, Anderson PA, Hilibrand AS, Vaccaro AF. Cervical myelopathy. Current diagnostic and treatment strategies. Spine J. 2003;3:68–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Suda K, Abumi K, Ito M, Shono Y, Kaneda K, Fujiya M. Local kyphosis reduces surgical outcomes of expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2003;28:1258–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000065487.82469.D9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Iwasaki M, Okuda SY, Miyauchi A, Sakaura H, Mukai Y, Yonenobu K, et al. Surgical strategy for cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: Part 2: advantages of anterior decompression and fusion over laminoplasty. Spine. 2007;32:654–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000257566.91177.cb.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Highsmith JM, Dhall SS, Haid RW, Rodts GE, Mummaneni PV. Treatment of cervical stenotic myelopathy: a cost and outcome comparison of laminoplasty versus laminectomy and lateral mass fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14:619–25. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.1.SPINE10206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Leckie S, Yoon ST, Isaacs R, Radcliff K, Fessler R, Haid R, et al. Perioperative complications of cervical spine surgery: analysis of a prospectively gathered database through the association for collaborative spinal research. Global Spine J. 2016;6:640–9. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1570089.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Goel A, Shah A. Facetal distraction as treatment for single- and multilevel cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and myelopathy: a preliminary report. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14:689–96. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.2.SPINE10601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tan LA, Straus DC, Traynelis VC. Cervical interfacet spacers and maintenance of cervical lordosis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22:466–9. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.10.SPINE14192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Heller JG, Edwards CC, Murakami H, Rodts GE. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched cohort analysis. Spine. 2001;26:1330–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Manzano GR, Casella G, Wang MY, Vanni S, Levi AD. A prospective, randomized trial comparing expansile cervical laminoplasty and cervical laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy. Neurosurgery. 2012;70:264–77. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182305669.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Woods BI, Hohl J, Lee J, Donaldson W, Kang J. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Orthop. 2011;469:688–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1653-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mummaneni PV, Haid RW, Rodts GE. Combined ventral and dorsal surgery for myelopathy and myeloradiculopathy. Neurosurgery. 2007;60:S82–9. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000215355.64127.76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

    Mena G. Kerolus & Vincent C. Traynelis

Authors
  1. Mena G. Kerolus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vincent C. Traynelis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent C. Traynelis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Michael G. Kaiser

  2. Atlanta Brain and Spine Care, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Regis W. Haid

  3. Duke University Health System, Durham, NC, USA

    Christopher I. Shaffrey

  4. Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Michael G. Fehlings

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kerolus, M.G., Traynelis, V.C. (2019). Surgical Approach Decision-Making. In: Kaiser, M., Haid, R., Shaffrey, C., Fehlings, M. (eds) Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy and Radiculopathy . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97952-6_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97952-6_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97951-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97952-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation