IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0140031.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Different Approaches for Treating Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Retrospective Study of 153 Cases from a Single Spinal Center

Author

Listed:
  • Xiumao Li
  • Liang Jiang
  • Zhongjun Liu
  • Xiaoguang Liu
  • Hua Zhang
  • Hua Zhou
  • Feng Wei
  • Miao Yu
  • Fengliang Wu

Abstract

Objective: The optimal surgical treatment for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM) remains controversial. This study compared the outcomes of three surgical approaches for MSCM treatment, focusing on the efficacy and safety of a combined approach. Methods: This retrospective study included 153 consecutive MCSM patients (100 men, 53 women; mean age ± standard deviation, 55.7 ± 9.4 years) undergoing operations involving ≥3 intervertebral segments. The patients were divided into three groups according to surgical approach: anterior (n = 19), posterior (n = 76), and combined (n = 58). We assessed demographic variables, perioperative parameters, and clinical outcomes ≥12 months after surgery (20.5 ± 7.6 months), including Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, improvement, recovery rate, and complications. Results: The anterior group had the most favorable preoperative conditions, including the highest preoperative JOA score (12.95 ± 1.86, p = 0.046). In contrast, the combined group had the highest occupancy ratio (48.0% ± 11.6%, p = 0.002). All groups showed significant neurological improvement at final follow-ups, with JOA recovery rates of 59.7%, 54.6%, and 68.9% in the anterior, posterior, and combined groups, respectively (p = 0.163). After multivariable adjustments, the groups did not have significantly different clinical outcomes (postoperative JOA score, p = 0.424; improvement, p = 0.424; recovery rate, p = 0.080). Further, subgroup analyses of patients with occupancy ratios ≥50% showed similar functional outcomes following the posterior and combined approaches. Overall complication rates did not differ significantly among the three approaches (p = 0.600). Occupancy ratios did not have a significant negative influence on postoperative recovery following the posterior approach. Conclusions: If applied appropriately, all three approaches are effective for treating MCSM. All three approaches had equivalent neurological outcomes, even in subgroups with high occupancy ratios. Further investigations of surgical approaches to MCSM are needed, particularly prospective multicenter studies with long-term follow-up.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiumao Li & Liang Jiang & Zhongjun Liu & Xiaoguang Liu & Hua Zhang & Hua Zhou & Feng Wei & Miao Yu & Fengliang Wu, 2015. "Different Approaches for Treating Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Retrospective Study of 153 Cases from a Single Spinal Center," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-12, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0140031
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0140031
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0140031&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0140031?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0140031. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.