Timing of Recovery After Surgery for Patients With Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network

BACKGROUND: The time course over which postoperative neurological recovery occurs after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy occurs is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To determine the time point at which patients experience significant neurological improvement. METHODS: We reviewed data from an ongoing prospective multicenter cohort study. We measured neurological function at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery using the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) scale. We implemented minimal clinical important differences (MCIDs) to guide interpretation of mJOA scores, and we used 1-way analysis of variance to compare changes between follow-up intervals. RESULTS: Among 330 patients, the mean overall mJOA improved from 12.9 (SD 2.6) to 14.6 (SD 2.4) at 3 months, 14.7 (SD 2.4) at 1 year, and 14.8 (SD 2.5) at 2 years. The difference in means was statistically significant (P < .01) at the interval from baseline to 3 months postoperatively, but not from 3 months to 1 year or 1 year to 2 years. The MCID was reached by 161 patients at 3 months, 32 more at 1 year, and 15 more at 2 years, with a statistically significant difference only at 3 months. Patients with moderate or severe disease reached the MCID more frequently than those with mild disease. CONCLUSION: Among patients who underwent surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy, most significant neurological improvement occurred by 3 months after surgery. These findings will facilitate valid discussions about postoperative expectations during shared clinical decision making between patients and their surgeons.

[1]  B. Aarabi,et al.  We Choose to Call it ‘Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy’: Findings of AO Spine RECODE-DCM, an International and Multi-Stakeholder Partnership to Agree a Standard Unifying Term and Definition for a Disease , 2022, Global spine journal.

[2]  B. Davies,et al.  A scoping review of information provided within degenerative cervical myelopathy education resources: Towards enhancing shared decision making , 2022, PloS one.

[3]  B. Aarabi,et al.  Developing Peri-Operative Rehabilitation in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy [AO Spine RECODE-DCM Research Priority Number 6]: An Unexplored Opportunity? , 2022, Global spine journal.

[4]  Jefferson R. Wilson,et al.  Optimizing the Application of Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy [AO Spine RECODE-DCM Research Priority Number 10] , 2022, Global spine journal.

[5]  B. Aarabi,et al.  Establishing the Socio-Economic Impact of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy Is Fundamental to Improving Outcomes [AO Spine RECODE-DCM Research Priority Number 8] , 2022, Global spine journal.

[6]  Rory K. J. Murphy,et al.  Improving Awareness Could Transform Outcomes in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy [AO Spine RECODE-DCM Research Priority Number 1] , 2022, Global spine journal.

[7]  A. Asher,et al.  High-impact chronic pain transition in surgical recipients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. , 2022, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[8]  Allan R. Martin,et al.  Improving Assessment of Disease Severity and Strategies for Monitoring Progression in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy [AO Spine RECODE-DCM Research Priority Number 4] , 2021, Global spine journal.

[9]  B. Aarabi,et al.  Gathering Global Perspectives to Establish the Research Priorities and Minimum Data Sets for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Sampling Strategy of the First Round Consensus Surveys of AO Spine RECODE-DCM , 2021, Global spine journal.

[10]  Jefferson R. Wilson,et al.  Cervical Sagittal Alignment in Patients with Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy , 2021, Spine.

[11]  B. Davies,et al.  Can co-authorship networks be used to predict author research impact? A machine-learning based analysis within the field of degenerative cervical myelopathy research , 2021, PloS one.

[12]  D. Cadotte,et al.  Effectiveness of Surgical Decompression in Patients With Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Results of the Canadian Prospective Multicenter Study. , 2021, Neurosurgery.

[13]  J. Finkelstein,et al.  Minimally Invasive Tubular Lumbar Discectomy Versus Conventional Open Lumbar Discectomy: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network , 2021, Global spine journal.

[14]  Allan R. Martin,et al.  Clinical outcomes of nonoperatively managed degenerative cervical myelopathy: an ambispective longitudinal cohort study in 117 patients. , 2021, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[15]  K. Freund,et al.  Effect of Ventral vs Dorsal Spinal Surgery on Patient-Reported Physical Functioning in Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2021, JAMA.

[16]  Y. Rampersaud,et al.  Lumbar Fusion Surgery for Patients With Back Pain and Degenerative Disc Disease: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network , 2021, Global spine journal.

[17]  Kristin R. Archer,et al.  Trajectory of Improvement in Myelopathic Symptoms From 3 to 12 Months Following Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy. , 2020, Neurosurgery.

[18]  D. Cadotte,et al.  Clinical predictors of achieving the minimal clinically important difference after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: an external validation study from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network. , 2020, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[19]  D. Cadotte,et al.  Treatment of Mild Cervical Myelopathy: Factors Associated with Decision for Surgical Intervention. , 2019, Spine.

[20]  D. Cadotte,et al.  Decompression Alone vs Decompression plus Fusion for Claudication Secondary to Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. , 2019, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[21]  B. Aarabi,et al.  Recovery priorities in degenerative cervical myelopathy: a cross-sectional survey of an international, online community of patients , 2019, BMJ Open.

[22]  B. Davies,et al.  Research Inefficiency in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Findings of a Systematic Review on Research Activity Over the Past 20 Years , 2019, Global spine journal.

[23]  B. Aarabi,et al.  RE-CODE DCM (REsearch Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy): A Consensus Process to Improve Research Efficiency in DCM, Through Establishment of a Standardized Dataset for Clinical Research and the Definition of the Research Priorities , 2019, Global spine journal.

[24]  Y. Rampersaud,et al.  Clinical outcomes research in spine surgery: what are appropriate follow-up times? , 2019, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[25]  M. Fehlings,et al.  Efficacy and Safety of Surgery for Mild Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Results of the AOSpine North America and International Prospective Multicenter Studies , 2018, Neurosurgery.

[26]  Sukhvinder Kalsi-Ryan,et al.  Is there a role for postoperative physiotherapy in degenerative cervical myelopathy? A systematic review , 2018, Clinical rehabilitation.

[27]  Allan R. Martin,et al.  Can microstructural MRI detect subclinical tissue injury in subjects with asymptomatic cervical spinal cord compression? A prospective cohort study , 2018, BMJ Open.

[28]  Joseph S. Cheng,et al.  Postoperative Resolution of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Signal Intensity Changes and the Associated Impact on Outcomes in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Analysis of a Global Cohort of Patients , 2017, Spine.

[29]  Jefferson R. Wilson,et al.  Predicting the minimum clinically important difference in patients undergoing surgery for the treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy. , 2016, Neurosurgical focus.

[30]  M. Fehlings,et al.  The Minimum Clinically Important Difference of the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scale in Patients with Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy , 2015, Spine.

[31]  C. Bolger,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 , 2015, Spine.

[32]  M. Fehlings,et al.  Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Epidemiology, Genetics, and Pathogenesis , 2015, Spine.

[33]  E. Sariali,et al.  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 , 2014, European Spine Journal.

[34]  D C Cole,et al.  Does how you do depend on how you think you'll do? A systematic review of the evidence for a relation between patients' recovery expectations and health outcomes. , 2001, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[35]  M. Fehlings,et al.  The modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale: establishing criteria for mild, moderate and severe impairment in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy , 2016, European Spine Journal.