Management of degenerative cervical myelopathy – An update

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: JOAQUIM,ANDREI F.
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: GHIZONI,ENRICO, TEDESCHI,HELDER, HSU,WELLINGTON K., PATEL,ALPESH A.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302016000900886
Resumo: SUMMARY Introduction Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is the most common cause of spinal cord dysfunction in adult patients. Patients generally present with a slow, progressive neurological decline or a stepwise deterioration pattern. In this paper, we discuss the most important factors involved in the management of DCM, including a discussion about the surgical approaches. Method The authors performed an extensive review of the peer-reviewed literature addressing the aforementioned objectives. Results Although the diagnosis is clinical, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the study of choice to confirm stenosis and also to exclude the differential diagnosis. The severity the clinical symptoms of DCM are evaluated by different scales, but the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) and the Nürick scale are probably the most commonly used. Spontaneous clinical improvement is rare and surgery is the main treatment form in an attempt to prevent further neurological deterioration and, potentially, to provide some improvement in symptoms and function. Anterior, posterior or combined cervical approaches are used to decompress the spinal cord, with adjunctive fusion being commonly performed. The choice of one approach over the other depends on patient characteristics (such as number of involved levels, site of compression, cervical alignment, previous surgeries, bone quality, presence of instability, among others) as well as surgeon preference and experience. Conclusion Spine surgeons must understand the advantages and disadvantages of all surgical techniques to choose the best procedure for their patients. Further comparative studies are necessary to establish the superiority of one approach over the other when multiple options are available.
id AMB-1_7e0ce1b4a40d2516e5d7dc6ccf47bec5
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0104-42302016000900886
network_acronym_str AMB-1
network_name_str Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Management of degenerative cervical myelopathy – An updatecervical myelopathyspondylotic myelopathysurgical approachanterior approachposterior approachSUMMARY Introduction Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is the most common cause of spinal cord dysfunction in adult patients. Patients generally present with a slow, progressive neurological decline or a stepwise deterioration pattern. In this paper, we discuss the most important factors involved in the management of DCM, including a discussion about the surgical approaches. Method The authors performed an extensive review of the peer-reviewed literature addressing the aforementioned objectives. Results Although the diagnosis is clinical, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the study of choice to confirm stenosis and also to exclude the differential diagnosis. The severity the clinical symptoms of DCM are evaluated by different scales, but the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) and the Nürick scale are probably the most commonly used. Spontaneous clinical improvement is rare and surgery is the main treatment form in an attempt to prevent further neurological deterioration and, potentially, to provide some improvement in symptoms and function. Anterior, posterior or combined cervical approaches are used to decompress the spinal cord, with adjunctive fusion being commonly performed. The choice of one approach over the other depends on patient characteristics (such as number of involved levels, site of compression, cervical alignment, previous surgeries, bone quality, presence of instability, among others) as well as surgeon preference and experience. Conclusion Spine surgeons must understand the advantages and disadvantages of all surgical techniques to choose the best procedure for their patients. Further comparative studies are necessary to establish the superiority of one approach over the other when multiple options are available.Associação Médica Brasileira2016-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302016000900886Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.62 n.9 2016reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)instacron:AMB10.1590/1806-9282.62.09.886info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessJOAQUIM,ANDREI F.GHIZONI,ENRICOTEDESCHI,HELDERHSU,WELLINGTON K.PATEL,ALPESH A.eng2016-12-16T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0104-42302016000900886Revistahttps://ramb.amb.org.br/ultimas-edicoes/#https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||ramb@amb.org.br1806-92820104-4230opendoar:2016-12-16T00:00Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Management of degenerative cervical myelopathy – An update
title Management of degenerative cervical myelopathy – An update
spellingShingle Management of degenerative cervical myelopathy – An update
JOAQUIM,ANDREI F.
cervical myelopathy
spondylotic myelopathy
surgical approach
anterior approach
posterior approach
title_short Management of degenerative cervical myelopathy – An update
title_full Management of degenerative cervical myelopathy – An update
title_fullStr Management of degenerative cervical myelopathy – An update
title_full_unstemmed Management of degenerative cervical myelopathy – An update
title_sort Management of degenerative cervical myelopathy – An update
author JOAQUIM,ANDREI F.
author_facet JOAQUIM,ANDREI F.
GHIZONI,ENRICO
TEDESCHI,HELDER
HSU,WELLINGTON K.
PATEL,ALPESH A.
author_role author
author2 GHIZONI,ENRICO
TEDESCHI,HELDER
HSU,WELLINGTON K.
PATEL,ALPESH A.
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv JOAQUIM,ANDREI F.
GHIZONI,ENRICO
TEDESCHI,HELDER
HSU,WELLINGTON K.
PATEL,ALPESH A.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv cervical myelopathy
spondylotic myelopathy
surgical approach
anterior approach
posterior approach
topic cervical myelopathy
spondylotic myelopathy
surgical approach
anterior approach
posterior approach
description SUMMARY Introduction Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is the most common cause of spinal cord dysfunction in adult patients. Patients generally present with a slow, progressive neurological decline or a stepwise deterioration pattern. In this paper, we discuss the most important factors involved in the management of DCM, including a discussion about the surgical approaches. Method The authors performed an extensive review of the peer-reviewed literature addressing the aforementioned objectives. Results Although the diagnosis is clinical, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the study of choice to confirm stenosis and also to exclude the differential diagnosis. The severity the clinical symptoms of DCM are evaluated by different scales, but the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) and the Nürick scale are probably the most commonly used. Spontaneous clinical improvement is rare and surgery is the main treatment form in an attempt to prevent further neurological deterioration and, potentially, to provide some improvement in symptoms and function. Anterior, posterior or combined cervical approaches are used to decompress the spinal cord, with adjunctive fusion being commonly performed. The choice of one approach over the other depends on patient characteristics (such as number of involved levels, site of compression, cervical alignment, previous surgeries, bone quality, presence of instability, among others) as well as surgeon preference and experience. Conclusion Spine surgeons must understand the advantages and disadvantages of all surgical techniques to choose the best procedure for their patients. Further comparative studies are necessary to establish the superiority of one approach over the other when multiple options are available.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-12-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302016000900886
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302016000900886
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/1806-9282.62.09.886
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Médica Brasileira
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Médica Brasileira
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.62 n.9 2016
reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
instacron:AMB
instname_str Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
instacron_str AMB
institution AMB
reponame_str Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
collection Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||ramb@amb.org.br
_version_ 1754212832333791232