Accepted Manuscript

An Evidence-Based Stepwise Surgical Approach to Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy:

A Narrative Review of the Current Literature

Majid Reza Farrokhi, MD, Fariborz Ghaffarpasand, MD, Mehdi Khani, MD, Mehrnaz
Gholami, MA
PII: S1878-8750(16)30497-1
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.06.109
Reference: WNEU 4268

To appear in: World Neurosurgery

Received Date: 2 April 2016

Revised Date: 25 June 2016
Accepted Date: 27 June 2016

Please cite this article as: Farrokhi MR, Ghaffarpasand F, Khani M, Gholami M, An Evidence-Based
Stepwise Surgical Approach to Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Narrative Review of the Current
Literature, World Neurosurgery (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.06.109.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
An Evidence-Based Stepwise Surgical Approach to Cervical Spondylotic
Myelopathy: A Narrative Review of the Current Literature

Majid Reza Farrokhi, MD1*, Fariborz Ghaffarpasand, MD1, Mehdi Khani, MD1, Mehrnaz
Gholami, MA2

PT
RI
1
Department of Neurosurgery, Shiraz Neuroscience Research Center, Shiraz University of
Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

SC
2
Shiraz Neuroscience Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

U
AN
Conflict of Interest: There is no conflict of interest to be declared regarding the manuscript.

Source of Funding: This article has no source of funding.

M

Short Title: An evidence-based stepwise surgical approach to CSM.

D
TE

* Corresponding author:

Majid Reza Farrokhi, MD

EP

Professor of Neurosurgery
Shiraz Neuroscience Research Center
Neurosurgery Department
C

Shiraz University of Medical Sciences

AC

Shiraz, Iran

Address for correspondence: Prof. Majid Reza Farrokhi, Shiraz Neuroscience Research
Center, Chamran Hospital, Chamran Boulevard, Shiraz, Iran.
PO Box: 7194815644
Tel/ Fax: +9871-36234508
E-mail: farrokhimr@yahoo.com
1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
An Evidence-Based Stepwise Surgical Approach to Cervical Spondylotic
Myelopathy: A Narrative Review of the Current Literature

PT
Abstract

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is the most common progressive degenerative

RI
disease of the spine in geriatric population. Surgery remains the mainstay of the treatment in
patients with CSM. The surgical approach should be based on cervical sagittal imbalance. In

SC
patients with effective cervical lordosis (fewer than 3 levels of ventral disease), the anterior
cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or arthroplasty is preferred. Patients with more than 3

U
levels of compression are generally treated by laminoplasty, especially with preserved
lordotic curvature. In patients with straightened spine who have less than 3 involved levels,
AN
ACDF with plate is recommended while the patients with more than 3 involved levels with
instability should undergo posterior decompression and fusion. In young patients, who have
M

stable cervical spine, laminoplasty is recommended and in old patients with ankylosed spine,
only laminectomy should be performed. Patients with mild cervical kyphosis (kyphotic angle
D

≤ 10°) should be managed like patients with straightened spine. However, in severe kyphosis,
TE

cervical traction is recommended. If the kyphosis is reducible, further posterior

decompression and fusion is adequate. In irreducible patients, if the number of involved levels
is less than 2 levels, ACDF is adequate, but if it is > 2 levels, anterior cervical corpectomy
EP

and fusion should be performed using cervical magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of
the patency of subarachnoid space (SAS). In patent SAS, only posterior fusion is adequate
C

while in closed SAS, posterior decompression with posterior fusion is required. These
AC

approaches are based on the most recent lines of evidence.

Keywords: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy • Surgery • Conservative care • Stenosis •

Stepwise approach • Straightened spine • Cervical kyphosis • Anterior cervical discectomy •
Posterior cervical fusion

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Context

Introduction
Epidemiology
Pathophysiology and natural course
Neurophysiological findings
Cervical sagittal balance and imbalance

PT
Approach to patients with normal cervical lordosis
Approach to patients with straightened spine

RI
Approach to patients with cervical kyphosis
Complications

SC
Summary
Conclusion

U
References
Figure Legends
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
INTRODUCTION

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is the most common progressive degenerative

disease of the spine in geriatric population, leading to a high social and economic burden.1-3
The radiologic evidence of CSM is reported in more than 50% of the middle-age patients
while only 10% of patients suffer from clinical cord or root compression.4 CSM is defined as

PT
a part of a spectrum of cervical spine degeneration ranging from neck pain to radiculopathy
or myelopathy. CSM is a complex neurosurgical entity which requires various operative and
non-operative managements.5-7 Previous systematic review has demonstrated that low levels

RI
of evidence support the role of non-operative management in the mild CSM. In those with
moderate to severe CSM, non-operative management is prohibited7 because this option has

SC
been shown to have outcomes inferior to those of surgery.8 Given the unpredictably
progressive nature of cervical myelopathy, the indications for non-operative management are

U
ostensibly limited.7,8 Based on results from a systematic review, approximately 20% to 60%
AN
of patients with symptomatic and radiological features of CSM will deteriorate overtime if
not treated surgically.9 Therefore, surgery remains the mainstay of the treatment in patients
with CSM. In the past decade, our understanding of the biomechanics of the spine has
M

improved along with advances in spinal instrumentation and this has led to significant
changes in the surgical management of CSM. Preservation or improvement of neurologic
D

function, correction of sagittal or coronal deformity and maintaining the cervical spine
TE

stability are the main aims of the surgical intervention. The choice of surgical intervention in
CSM mainly depends on clinical condition and the surgeon’s choice. The choice of operative
EP

procedure should take into consideration the individual patient's clinical and radiological
characteristics, age, co-morbidities, lifestyle (smoking etc.), procedure-specific risks and
finally, the experience and comfort level of the surgeon with various surgical procedures.
C

Studies, including the AOSpine International multicenter prospective study, have also shown
AC

that the majority of the spine surgeons prefer the anterior approach in 51-60% of cases,
posterior approach in about 35% and a combined approach in the remaining.10,11 Anterior
approach appears to be more suitable when the pathologies of anterior involve only 1 or 2
vertebral body levels, while if more than 2 levels usually proceed using an posterior approach
clinically.12 A systematic review of literature demonstrated that, for both effectiveness and
safety, there was no clear advantage to either an anterior surgical approach or a posterior
surgical approach when treating patients with multilevel CSM, but the overall strength of the
4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
evidence was low.13 There’s no consensus among experts about the best way to perform the
surgery to ease CSM. Recently, some researchers are conducting a Patient Centered
Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) study about CSM to find the best surgical method, but
their findings have not been published yet.14 Although it is generally agreed that surgical
intervention positively impacts the prognosis of CSM, the decision algorithm for the selection
of the most appropriate surgical technique is complex. Several studies have addressed the

PT
issue extensively,6,8,15-17 but none of them provided a stepwise practical approach for surgical
management of CSM. The aim of the current review is to provide an evidence-base stepwise

RI
surgical approach to CSM according to the recent literature.

SC
EPIDEMIOLOGY

U
CSM is considered to be the most common degenerative disease of the spinal column in
patients older than 55 years.3,4 Age and comorbid conditions, such as hypertension, lung
AN
disease, diabetes, and obesity, as predictors of adverse surgical events are also important
factors in choosing an appropriate surgical approach.18 In a study conducted by Boakye et
M

al.18, the authors showed that in patients with CSM undergoing anterior cervical discectomy
and fusion (ACDF), age is the most important indicator of the outcome. It is clearly
D

demonstrated that the degree of cervical lordosis increases by the age and the increase in the
TE

lordosis is significantly higher in women compared to men (–25 ± 16 vs. –22 ± 13,
respectively).19 Although the disease is common and associated with high socioeconomic
burden, a recent meta-analysis reported that the literature did not include any article reporting
EP

an incidence or prevalence of CSM.1 According to this study, the annual incidence of CSM
was 1.6 per 100,000 inhabitants based on the number of patients who underwent operation
C

and those who were screened in the outpatient clinics.1 The reported mean age was 62.1 ±
AC

10.6 (range 34.5–80.9) years with a male predominance (52.5%).1 According to some studies,
the prevalence of CSM accounts for 10% ~ 15% of cervical spondylosis.20,21 A national
cohort study in Taiwan reported that an overall incidence of CSM-related hospitalization is
4.04 per 100,000 person-years.4 Men and older patients had a higher incidence of CSM.4 This
study reported that the incidence of spinal cord injury in those with CSM is 12.33 per 1000
person-years4 which is extremely higher when compared to general population (0.13 per 1000
person-years).22 Another recent study in England also reported a male to female ratio of

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
approximately 2.7:1, with an average age of 63.8 years at the diagnosis. Multi-level disease
was seen in the majority of patients, with C5-C6 being the most commonly affected level.3 In
Rochester, the average annual age-adjusted incidence rates per 100,000 populations were 83.2
for the total, 107.3 for males and 63.5 for females. The age-specific annual incidence rate per
100,000 populations reached a peak of 202.9 for the age group 50-54 years.23 The prevalence
of CSM in Italy was also reported to be 3.5 per 1,000 inhabitants which increased to a peak at

PT
age 50-59 years, and decreased thereafter. The age-specific prevalence was consistently
higher in women contrary to other reports.24

RI
PATHOPHYSIOLOGY AND NATURAL COURSE

SC
CSM is considered to be the result of both static and dynamic mechanical factors which
compress the cord resulting in myelopathy.25 Static mechanical factors refer to structural

U
abnormalities and degenerative spondylotic changes of the cervical spinal column such as
AN
osteophyte and spur formations, ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament,
ligamentum flavum hypertrophy and kyphosis and subluxation of the cervical spine which
M

result in physical narrowing of the spinal canal or direct compression of the cervical spinal
cord.17,26,27 Dynamic mechanical factors refer to pathologies associated with cervical motion
D

(flexion and extension). Dynamic factors result from static factors which have previously
narrowed the cervical canal. Flexion and extension of the stenotic cervical canal leads to
TE

compression of the spinal cord towards the osteophytes and hypertrophied ligamentum
flavum, respectively.28 These continuous and chronic micro-traumas along with ischemia lead
EP

to myelopathy.
C

Although several studies have investigated the natural history of untreated CSM, the
subject still remains unclear.9,29-31 A recent meta-analysis of the current literature revealed that
AC

20% to 60% of the patients would deteriorate neurologically over time without surgical
intervention (moderate strength of evidence).9 This study also indicated that there is low
strength of evidence indicating that the area of circumferential compression is associated with
deteriorating neurological symptoms.9 According to the results of several studies which
evaluated the outcome of non-operative management of CSM,29-31 it can be concluded that
even in patients with mild CSM, surgery should be recommended. Even patients with mild

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
CSM demonstrate progressive course, especially those who are older than 65 years. This is
because chronic compression of the spinal cord results in progressive neural cell loss
following apoptosis, neuroinflammation, and vascular disruption.30,32 Those with mild CSM
should be consulted regarding the natural course of the disease and surgery should be
recommended.

PT
NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL FINDINGS

RI
CSM has a variable course and different possible treatment strategies. In order to choose the
best treatment strategy, patients with CSM must be evaluated with neuroimaging and

SC
neurophysiology.33,34 The neurophysiological evaluation often includes electromyography
(EMG), electroneurography (ENG), and evoked potentials.33,35 EMG performed with needle

U
electrodes is the oldest method for diagnosing nerve root compression and anterior horn cell
syndromes, and is claimed to have no false-positive results.33,36 Sensory evoked potentials
AN
(SEPs) by stimulation of tibial nerve and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) from the upper and
lower extremities are easy, non-invasive diagnostic tests which are recommended for the
M

differential diagnosis of CSM.33,34,37-40 While SEPs and MEPs are valuable tools in
documenting the functional involvement of somatosensory and motor pathways in
D

myelopathy,33,36,38,39,41-43 EMG, ENG, and F-wave studies are more useful for evaluation of
the peripheral segments of the sensory and motor pathways. The neurophysiological
TE

monitoring of SEPs, MEPs and EMG is of great importance to prevent the neurological
complications during the procedure.44 Baseline and follow-up electrophysiological
EP

parameters play an important role for detecting functional abnormalities of the spinal cord
and may be a useful way to monitor the progression, therefore they can help the decision
C

making process in patients with mild clinical findings and severe radiological
findings.33,35,41,45-47 In order to investigate the contribution of various neurophysiological
AC

examinations in the diagnosis in cervical spondylosis, Tsiptsios et al.48 examined 70 patients

suffering from cervical spondylosis, with peripheral nerve conduction studies, F-wave from
the upper limb and EMG from the corresponding muscles, as well as SEPs from upper and
lower limbs and separated the patients into four groups who had cervical spondylosis
symptoms only, symptoms and signs of spinal root involvement, symptoms and signs of
myelopathy, or symptoms and signs of both myelopathy and spinal root involvement. In all

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
groups of patients SEPs were the most sensitive electrophysiological study.48 SEPs have been
also reported to be more sensitive than nerve conduction studies and EMG.49 Lyu et al.37
reported 49% abnormal SEPs for median nerve and 47% for posterior tibial nerve SEPs in
CSM patients who had signal changes in the spinal cord with magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI). MEPs have been reported to be more sensitive than SEPs in detecting CSM,45 but
SEP’s are more useful in detecting clinically silent lesions.38,41,50 De Mattei found sensitivity

PT
of MEPs in patients with cervical compression myelopathy to be 70% for upper extremity
muscles, and 95% for lower extremity muscles.51 Simó et al.41 studied the role of evoked

RI
potentials in the diagnosis of CSM in 51 patients with radiological signs of cord compression
and they concluded that MEP is more superior to SEP in detecting early stage myelopathy.
Tanaka et al.52 examined MEPs in patients with clinically relevant cervical myelopathy who

SC
underwent decompressive surgery. Patients who presented a central motor latency longer than
15 ms and/or polyphasic wave pattern of the potential had worse surgical results than the

U
remaining patients. In a cross-sectional observational study, Kalupahana53 studied the
AN
changes of neurophysiological parameters in patients with CSM and radiculopathy, with a
view of identifying the role of each neurophysiological investigation in the evaluation of
M

these patients and concluded that 1) the study of MEPs of upper limb muscles appears to be a
useful test for the prediction of the presence of cervical radiculopathy, while median nerve
D

SEPs do not appear to be useful for it; 2) in addition to the well-established abnormalities of
central motor conduction times, the duration of MEPs also appear to be of value as an
TE

abnormal parameter in the evaluation of cervical myelopathy; and 3) the study of MEPs of
upper and lower limb muscles appear to be a useful method for the prediction of the presence
EP

of cervical myelopathy while the use of posterior tibial SEPs alone seems to be insufficient
for it. Moreover, Karlikaya et al.34 reported that although MEPs seem to be superior to SEPs
C

in the early stages of myelopathy, certainly combining two methods is the best.
AC

CERVICAL SAGITTAL BALANCE AND IMBALANCE

Recently, the role of sagittal balance in cervical spine disorders and on the possible role of
imbalance in predicting clinical and functional outcomes has become a focus of attention.54
The spinal column sagittal balance refers to the shape of the spine that encompasses it to keep
the standing position with minimal muscular effort.55 Spinal column shape and consequently

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
the sagittal balance is the result of the balance between the bony structures (vertebras) and the
non-bony elements (intervertebral discs, ligaments and fascia). In order to define the intrinsic
cervical sagittal balance, a line should be drawn from the dorsocaudal aspect of the C2
vertebral body to the same C7 point to create the associated gray zone. When the shaded gray
zone is located posterior to any of the vertebral bodies, it is assumed that the cervical spine
has effective lordosis. When the posterior-most aspect of the vertebral body is located within

PT
the gray zone, we have a straightened cervical spine. Kyphosis is seen when any portion of
the vertebral bodies is posterior to the shaded gray area.56 The surgical outcome of the
patients with CSM is also dependent on cervical sagittal balance.57,58 A growing body of

RI
evidence suggests that there is a strong correlation between the whole and regional spine
sagittal balance and the quality of life (QOL) and disability in the aging population.59,60

SC
Cervical sagittal plane deformity is mainly due to the secondary etiologies including trauma,
degenerative spinal disorders, surgical destabilization, spine arthritis (ankylosing spondylitis,

U
rheumatoid arthritis), and malignancies.61,62 Surgical intervention is indicated in those
AN
patients with sagittal plane deformities, resulting in neurological deficit, intractable pain and
functional disability. The level of compression and the sagittal imbalance are the most
M

important factors in choosing a surgical approach for a patient with CSM. Therefore, the
cervical sagittal imbalance should be assessed before any surgical intervention in order to
obtain favorable outcomes. Naderi et al.56 classified the cervical sagittal imbalance to
D

effective lordosis, straightened spine and kyphotic spine. Tang et al.63 demonstrated that in
TE

patients undergoing multilevel posterior cervical fusion for cervical stenosis, myelopathy, and
kyphosis, the C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) and center of gravity of head are important
EP

indicators of QOL as well as neck disability index (NDI) after the operation. They
demonstrated that a C2-C7 SVA value of approximately 40-mm is required for obtaining
favorable surgical outcome in posterior cervical fusion.63 However, Villavicencio et al.64
C

demonstrated that there were no statistically significant differences in clinical outcome scores
AC

between the lordotic and parallel graft patient groups, but patients who had maintained or
improved segmental sagittal alignment, regardless of graft type, achieved a higher degree of
improvement in QOL and NDI scores.64 We herein represent an evidence-based approach to
CSM based on the cervical sagittal imbalance (Figure 1). Since there is no clear,
straightforward and strong evidence in the literature on stepwise surgical approach to CSM
and with regard to increasing old population in the world, the surgical approach to a serious
and rather common pathology of the spine make it necessary to suggest a simple, easily
9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
understandable, and applicable algorithm (Figure 1). Although such algorithms can be
designed based on the last evidence from retrospective studies reported by expert authors in
the literature, it makes no serious bias in such studies and, therefore, it does not make any
ambiguity.

APPROACH TO PATIENTS WITH NORMAL CERVICAL LORDOSIS

PT
Special attention should be paid to the sagittal alignment of the cervical spine, i.e. both overall

RI
cervical lordosis as well as segmental lordosis at the affected level. In those with sagittal
alignment of the spinal column, reduction is not necessary for the treatment of CSM and only

SC
decompression is required. Therefore, the surgical option depends on several other factors
such as the number of levels involved, the location of the abnormal compression, the presence

U
of preoperative neck pain and previous operations.6 Current lines of evidence suggest that the
surgical approach in those with CSM with effective cervical lordosis is based on the number
AN
of involved levels.65-67 In patients with fewer than three levels of ventral disease, the anterior
approach is preferred.66-69 Although the surgical approach to CSM treatment has proven to be
M

controversial, anterior decompression and fusion can remove the compressive pathology and
reconstruct the alignment of the cervical spine, yielding good clinical results. Both ACDF and
D

arthroplasty are the most common surgical procedures of the cervical spine which are
TE

indicated in patients with CSM with fewer than 3 involved levels. ACDF preserves the
cervical lordosis and corrects and/or prevents the spinal instability. Recently, Zhu et al.69
demonstrated that ACDF is associated with better cervical range of motion when compared to
EP

dynamic cervical implant (DCI) and cervical total disc replacement in patients with CSM with
fewer than 3 involved levels. In a systematic review, Shamji et al.70 recommended that in
C

limited anterior CSM with normal cervical lordosis, ACDF could be adequate while in more
AC

extensive diseases, anterior procedures seem to be inadequate. Increased range of motion of

the cervical spine is an important contraindication of the ACDF. Therefore, some authors
have tested DCI for treatment of patients with CSM and effective lordosis. In a recent clinical
trial, Li et al.67 demonstrated that DCI had comparable results with ACDF. These results were
also verified by Fay et al.71. Consequently, DCI also could be used instead of ACDF in these
groups of patients. The disadvantages of the anterior approaches include graft complications,
need for postoperative bracing, loss of motion, indirect decompression and adjacent segment

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
degeneration.65 Gum et al.58 showed that in patients undergoing ACDF, postoperative cervical
lordosis of at least 6° predicts achievement of minimum clinically important difference for
NDI. This indicates that marinating cervical lordosis is important in achieving favorable
results after ACDF.

Patients with more than three levels of compression are generally treated by laminoplasty,

PT
especially if cervical lordosis is preserved.72-74 Cervical laminoplasty is a suitable surgical
option in many patients with cervical myelopathy caused by multilevel spinal cord

RI
compression,75 and numerous studies have documented satisfactory results with this
method.76-82 This procedure preserves the spinal motility, minimizes the complication of the

SC
laminectomy especially postoperative spinal instability and avoids the development of
postlaminectomy membrane. In laminoplasty, the dura is not exposed and the posterior bony

U
elements are preserved. Thus, concomitant fixation and fusion can be performed.83 In
AN
addition, it can be performed in patients with adjacent segment degeneration who undergo
multilevel anterior decompression and fusion. In these patients, laminoplasty is not associated
with increased degeneration of the adjacent segments while fusion and fixation are not
M

required.84 The presence of cervical kyphosis is the contraindication for laminoplasty. As

postoperative axial neck pain is common in patients who undergo laminoplasty, the decision
D

to perform laminoplasty in a patient with significant preoperative neck pain should be taken
TE

cautiously.6,72 There are some unique complications related to laminoplasty which include
postoperative axial neck pain,85 segmental root palsy with an incidence of approximately
5%,86 closing of the laminar door, and worsening of the cervical alignment.87
C EP

APPROACH TO PATIENTS WITH STRAIGHTENED SPINE

AC

The cervical spine should normally demonstrate a lordotic curvature so if the cervical spine is
straight, it is abnormal. Physiologic cervical lordosis maintains basic biomechanical balance
of the cervical spine, through intricate interrelation between physiologic lordosis,
anteroposterior intervertebral disc edge space height, and sagittal spatial alignment.88 From a
biomechanical point of view, there are many discussions in the literature as to whether the
loss of the physiological lordosis could be a possible cause of pain, due to muscular

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
imbalance or structural overload of the anterior parts of the spine.89,90 The loss or reversal of
the normal lordosis has been speculated to cause numerous consequences in health, including
decreased vital lung capacity, cervical, interscapular, headache pain and temporomandibular
disorders.91,92 Cervical lordosis may play a positive role in cervical spondylosis treatment.
The vertebral deformation caused by stress concentration will straighten the cervical curve
more. With elderly patients, vertebral deformation is the most common reason for sagittal

PT
profile change of the cervical spine because of vertebral degeneration.93 In contrast, vertebral
degeneration is not so common in young people. Wei et al.88 proposed a finite element

RI
analysis of the complete cervical spine with straightened and normal physiological curvature
by using a specially designed modelling system and their result demonstrated that the active

SC
movement range of straightened cervical spine decreases 24–33 %, but stress increases 5–95
%. Also they reported that there was stress concentration at the facet joint cartilage,
uncovertebral joint and the disk, which implied there might arise abnormal tensions on the

U
hind-brain, cranial nerves, cervical cord, and cervical nerve roots. Wei et al.88 proposed the
AN
cervical muscle imbalance could be the main reason for cervical curve straightening.
M

Loss of normal cervical lordosis which leads to straightened spine along with ossification
of the posterior longitudinal ligament leads to stenosis of the spinal canal causing cord
D

compression which may contribute to the development of myelopathy,94,95 and in these

TE

patients, the spinal cord could be compressed by tethering over the apical vertebra or
intervertebral disc or by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament.96 One of the
important pathophysiological mechanisms of CSM in patients with straightened cervical spine
EP

is longitudinal distraction causing progressive spinal cord dysfunction.97 It has been

previously shown in animal studies that artificial distraction of C1 and C7 would result in the
C

disappearance of spinal cord evoked potentials especially at the midcord segment, suggesting
AC

that distraction stress in humans is mostly concentrated at the C4 and C5 levels, i.e. where
kyphosis and/or local angulatory deformity is frequent.98 Therefore, even when the entire
spinal cord is longitudinally distracted, injury of the anterior horn and the pyramidal tracts
induced by such mechanical distraction stress will be significant.

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The number of involved levels is the most important factor in choosing the surgical
approach. Multiple case series have reported that a 1 to 3 level ACDF is safe and effective in
decompressing ventral pathology.67,99-101 Those with a straightened cervical spine should not
generally be considered for extensive posterior decompression. With appropriate placement of
the interbody spacer, ACDF adds at least 5 degrees of lordosis per level and thus results in a
more physiologic lordotic curvature of the cervical spine and potentially restores overall

PT
sagittal balance.102 However, applying this procedure to greater than 3 levels can often result
in complications, including graft extrusion, subsidence, fracture, and
pseudoarthrosis.99,100,103,104 ACDF is effective for ventral pathology that is confined to the

RI
cervical interspaces (i.e., osteophyte/disc complexes). Resection of the osteophyte/disc

SC
complex and placement of an interspace graft not only removes the offending ventral
pathology, but also can be used to restore lordosis to a straight or kyphotic spine. As ACDF
cannot be performed in more than 3 level pathologies, other surgical approaches should be

U
undertaken. In those with multilevel CSM who has straightened cervical spine, stability
AN
should be evaluated by means of dynamic cervical radiographies. In those with cervical
instability, posterior decompression and fusion is the method of choice.105,106 Posterior
M

cervical decompression and fusion is an accepted treatment of CSM and is the procedure of
choice for the patients with multilevel CSM (Figure 2). Posterior surgical approaches
D

typically involve laminectomy with or without fusion or laminoplasty. These procedures

allow for direct decompression of the cervical spine when the causative pathology is located
TE

at the posterior aspect of the spinal canal (i.e., hypertrophied ligamentum flavum). Posterior
approaches also allow indirect decompression of the spinal cord from anterior pathology by
EP

enlarging the spinal canal and allowing the cord to migrate away from the offending
pathology. Posterior approaches offer several advantages compared with anterior cervical
C

approaches for CSM. For example, such procedures may not require fusion of vertebral levels
which leads to avoid the cost and potential complications of instrumented fusion and limit
AC

adjacent level spondylotic degeneration. In contrast to anterior approaches to the cervical

spine, posterior approaches avoid exposure and injury to critical neck structures including the
esophagus, recurrent laryngeal nerve, and carotid artery. Furthermore, direct visualization and
decompression of nerve roots is possible using posterior approaches. Finally, posterior
decompression procedures are particularly appealing in patients with congenitally narrow
canals. The primary disadvantages of posterior approaches include the possibility of
developing postlaminectomy kyphosis or instability. Furthermore, these approaches do not
13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
typically allow for primary resection of ventral canal pathology such as disc/osteophyte
complexes, particularly in association with preexisting kyphotic deformity.18

When dynamic radiographies do not demonstrate the instability of the cervical spine, age is
the determining factor for surgical approach. In elder patients with spondylotic spines,
laminectomy is an appropriate choice. Cervical laminectomy, which permits adequate

PT
decompression of the spinal cord, has long been the treatment for multilevel cervical
spondylosis. But in younger individuals, laminoplasty is the method of choice. Laminectomy

RI
has traditionally been the gold standard for posterior approaches for CSM. This technique has
been well described in the literature and is considered as a safe surgical procedure. However,

SC
the biggest complication after laminectomy is postlaminectomy instability/kyphosis. Multiple
lamina are resected in patients who undertake aggressive facet resection and these patients are

U
at an increased risk of developing postlaminectomy kyphosis when there is preexisting
instability.107 Studies suggest that the risk of postlaminectomy kyphosis in adult patients is
AN
between 6% and 52%.108 Resection of the C2 and/or C7 lamina or spinous processes may
increase this risk.109,110 This risk could be minimized by instrumented stabilization at the time
M

of initial laminectomy which serves to both stabilize the cervical spine as well as secure the
spine in an optimal lordotic configuration. There are multiple instrumentation techniques that
D

have been well described in the literature.5,18,105 The goal of instrumentation is to provide
TE

temporary structural stabilization to allow solid bone formation. Traditional techniques such
as interfacet wiring have been replaced by modern lateral mass and pedicle screw fixation
systems. These modern fixation systems depend on screws to anchor rods or plates along the
EP

lateral masses. The most common technique for placement of lateral mass screw is Magerl
technique which avoids neurovascular injury.111 In a series of patients with posterior lateral
C

mass instrumentation, Heller et al.112 found that the risk of nerve root injury was less than 1%
AC

per screw placed and no patient experienced injury to the vertebral artery or spinal cord.

APPROACH TO PATIENTS WITH CERVICAL KYPHOSIS

Cervical kyphosis is a potentially debilitating form of sagittal deformity that poses unique
challenges to the treating spinal surgeon.113,114 Cervical kyphotic deformity may lead to CSM
due to stenosis of the cervical canal and compression of the cord toward the posterior
14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
longitudinal ligament. The development of kyphotic deformity following decompressive
cervical laminectomy is a well-documented iatrogenic cause of sagittal cervical imbalance.115-
117
Surgery to treat cervical kyphosis is usually a spinal fusion combined with segmental
instrumentation. Surgical correction is the most difficult type of treatment for cervical
kyphosis. There are three approaches for cervical kyphosis: the anterior, posterior or
combined procedures. Surgery to the front of the spine (anterior cervical fusion) is done to

PT
relieve the pressure on the spinal cord. The second procedure is done through the back
(posterior cervical fusion) to fuse the spine and prevent the kyphosis from returning. Some

RI
surgeons prefer the anterior-alone approach because they are familiar with the procedure and
it permits both ventral decompression, as the spinal cord compression in cervical kyphosis is
usually ventral, and the correction of deformity.93,118-122 It is associated with lower rates of

SC
morbidity and mortality than the combined approach. Other surgeons prefer the combined
anterior and posterior approach rather than the anterior procedure alone, as the latter may fail

U
to achieve large correction and is prone to reconstructive failure and loss of correction due to
AN
mechanical disadvantages, especially in patients with postlaminectomy kyphosis.123-125
Regarding the importance of neurophysiological monitoring, as it has been discussed before,
M

patients should be neuromonitored throughout the entire operative procedure with transcranial
motor-evoked potentials, somatosensory-evoked potentials and EMG.
D
TE

Cervical kyphosis can be categorized as 1 of 2 types of sagittal deformities: flexible versus

fixed.125,126 If the kyphosis is flexible, the decision to go ahead with surgery should be based
upon: the progression of the deformity, the severity of the deformity, and the amount of pain
EP

it causes. Flexible cervical kyphosis is posturally reducible with or without gentle traction127
and therefore commonly treated by reduction and posterior stabilization with fusion to
C

guarantee the stability of the cervical spine.113,114 In this setting, interbody arthrodesis can be
AC

used for anterior column load sharing, however, it is not required for deformity correction.126
Alternatively, some authors have reported the use of anterior-only surgery for flexible cervical
kyphosis, the reduction being accomplished by anterior column distraction across implants
and interbody fusion.93,118,120 In addition, in a case study, Dugoni et al.44 reported that the
anterior approach is a good surgical option in flexible cervical kyphosis. However, the
posterior approach has been found to be associated with better functional outcome.105 If the
fixed deformity is accompanied by neurological problems from pressure on the spinal cord,

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
surgery becomes more likely. In the treatment of fixed cervical kyphosis, different strategies
of correction and stabilization can be entertained with advantages and disadvantages for each.
The surgical sequence depends on many factors, including the sites of bony ankylosis, extent
of kyphosis, and presence and location of spinal cord compression. If the kyphosis is due to
ankylosing spondylitis (AS), the connection between the cervical and thoracic spine is the
problem area. This type of cervical kyphosis is usually a fixed deformity. In AS the discs

PT
between each vertebra of the entire spine calcify and fuse the bones of the spine together. In
this situation, osteotomies are required to release the areas of ankylosis, thereby transforming
a fixed kyphosis into one that is flexible.114,128 Unlike flexible deformity, preoperative

RI
cervical halo-traction is of no significant value in cases of fixed deformity. As discussed

SC
above, the distinction between flexible and fixed cervical deformities is important in terms of
treatment strategy, and in particular, the need for osteotomies to attain correction. This
procedure involves cutting the front of the spinal column so the surgeon can straighten the

U
spine. The spinal cord is not cut-only the bones of the vertebrae in the front of the spinal
AN
column. Importantly, all patients in this series had fixed cervical kyphosis and therefore
underwent circumferential osteotomies and stabilization for correction of deformity. Abumi et
al.128 treated patients having a fixed kyphosis with a combined anterior and posterior
M

procedure; these patients all underwent osteotomies and circumferential spinal fusion. The
D

correction of the kyphosis was achieved in all patients through posterior pedicle screw
fixation. In this fixed deformity cohort, mean preoperative kyphosis of +31° was improved to
TE

+1° of kyphosis at final follow-up, yielding a final average correction of 30° which provided a
stronger stabilizing effect and greater pullout strength. In a single institutional experience,
EP

O’Shaughnessy et al.125 investigated clinical and radiographic outcomes following the

surgical treatment of fixed cervical kyphosis with myelopathy and they reported that not only
C

fixed cervical kyphosis with myelopathy can be successfully treated surgically with
circumferential osteotomies and instrumented fusion, but also a high percentage of patients
AC

achieved an excellent or good clinical outcome and measurable improvement in their

symptoms of myelopathy.

The surgical strategy for CSM accompanying local kyphosis remains controversial. Uchida
et al.129 reported that the outcomes of anterior decompression/fusion for CSM with local
kyphosis with an angle of 10° or more were equivalent to those of laminoplasty alone for the

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
same pathology at follow-up in their series of 43 patients, and the recovery rates of the
Japanese Orthopedic Association score were acceptable in both groups. In their series, the
local kyphosis angle of the anterior decompression/fusion group at follow-up was still a mean
of 9.2°, so the correction of the local kyphosis would appear to be somewhat mild. Chiba et
al.130 reported that several patients obtained an acceptable clinical outcome after laminoplasty
alone, even in the context of cervical kyphosis, and they speculated that the slack of the spinal

PT
cord, especially in patients showing reduction of multilevel disc height, should allow
acceptable recovery. On the other hand, several authors have insisted that the outcome of
laminoplasty alone for CSM with local kyphosis was not acceptable.131 Baba et al.132 reported

RI
that patients with preoperative kyphosis (mean of 11.7°) showed significantly poorer
neurological improvement. Moreover, Suda et al.131 reported that the outcomes of

SC
laminoplasty for CSM accompanying local kyphosis with an angle exceeding 13° (when
coexisted with myelomalacia) and 5° (without myelomalacia) were poorer than those for

U
CSM without local kyphosis in their multivariate logistic regression analysis.
AN
Based on the experience and evidence provided in the literature, we herein suggest a
M

stepwise surgical approach to CSM with kyphosis deformity. Patients with mild cervical
kyphosis (kyphotic angle ≤ 10°) should be managed like straightened spine. In patients with
D

mild kyphosis deformity with less than 3 involved levels, ACDF and fusion with plate is
TE

recommended. However, the management of CSM with severe cervical kyphosis still remains
a dilemma to neurosurgeons. In patients with severe cervical kyphosis, traction is often used
prior to surgical intervention. If the reduction of kyphosis is significant after 5–7 days of
EP

traction, a dorsal strategy that includes fixation and fusion is often used to maintain the
correction (Figure 3). If there is no reduction of kyphosis after 5–7 days of traction, it is
C

unlikely to achieve success with traction. Traction may also be associated with medical
AC

complications, transient neurological deterioration or patient refusal.120 Occasionally, traction

is continued into the operating room and used to correct the deformity during the operation. In
the anterior procedure, once decompression is completed, the amount of traction is increased
to correct the deformity.133 Rhee and Basra134 showed that patients with multilevel disease
with neutral cervical alignment or in those with reducible cervical kyphosis, lateral mass
fusion is an option as the cervical alignment can be restored prior to securing the
instrumentation. In irreducible cervical kyphosis, anterior corpectomy and instrumentation

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
should be performed to obtain appropriate functional recovery.133,135,136 In patients with less
than 2 involved levels, no more imaging and investigations are required. In these patients,
ACDF can correct sagittal imbalance about 5° per level so this procedure is associated with
favorable outcome and good functional recovery.137 In those with more than 2 involved levels,
anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) should be performed using cervical MRI for
evaluation of the patency of subarachnoid space (SAS) and the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flow

PT
around the cord. If the magnetic resonance myelogram demonstrates the patent SAS, only
posterior cervical fusion can be performed.138 However, in those with closed SAS, posterior

RI
decompression and posterior fusion are required to maintain the favorable functional
recovery.139,140 Posterior cervical fusion may be performed in conjunction with or without a

SC
posterior decompression (laminectomy) and/or instrumentation (use of metal screws/rods).
Nowadays, metal screws and rods are almost always used, which adds immediate stability and
increases the fusion rate (percentage of patients where the bone successfully mends together).

U
When Anderson et al. reviewed the treatment of cervical myelopathy, they concluded that
AN
posterior cervical decompression with fusion was an acceptable treatment modality.5,141-144
There is a commonly held belief that posterior cervical fusions have a high fusion rate,
ranging from 90% to 100%, depending on the fusion criteria utilized.145-154 Higher fusion rates
M

with posterior cervical fusion may be more appropriate in patients with osteopenia or
D

osteodysplasia.
TE

COMPLICATIONS
EP

As with any surgery, there are risks associated with cervical spine surgery. Possible
complications can be related to the approach used, the bone graft, healing, or long-term
C

changes. In general, elderly patients, patients who are overweight, smokers, and patients with
AC

diabetes or multiple medical problems have higher rates of complications from surgery.
However, in a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study conducted by Buerba et al.155, the
authors evaluated the effect of obesity on complication rates after posterior cervical fusion in
the 30-day postoperative period and their results suggested that high obesity class may not be
associated with increased complications after posterior cervical fusion, despite previous study
results. Wang et al.156 reported that the risk of complication is highest in patients undergoing
a posterior approach or combined anterior posterior procedure and patients with a primary

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
diagnosis of CSM. Complications related to the correction procedure include implant
displacement, graft dislodgment, pseudarthrosis, dysphagia, hoarseness of voice, wound
infection, dural tear resulting in CSF leakage, pneumonia, neurological deficits (e.g.,
quadriparesis, radiculopathy and C5 root palsy) and injury to the vertebral artery. The
potential risks and complications of posterior cervical spinal fusion are wound infection,
degeneration of disk levels above or below surgery level, injury to the vertebral artery, stretch

PT
on the nerves from the spinal cord drifting backwards, indirect decompression, late instability
or deformity (laminoplasty), inconsistent relief of neck pain (laminoplasty), neurological

RI
injuries such as lesions to spinal cord, nerve roots, and dura matter, specific neurological
injuries such as damages to the greater occipital nerve of Arnold and postoperative C5 palsy,

SC
CSF leaks, vascular injuries, and bad positioning which causes increased splenic venous
pressure, greater intraoperative bleeding, poor oxygenation of the patient, unfavorable
position of the head and neck with respect to the trunk, displacement of endotracheal tubes,

U
and ophthalmologic complications. In addition, posterior approach cannot be used for
AN
kyphotic spines. Abumi et al.128 utilized posteriorly placed cervical pedicle screw fixation to
manage patients with flexible mild degenerative kyphosis. Although they achieved favorable
M

results and no screw-related complications, the risks that were associated with placing the
cervical pedicle screws limited the use of this strategy. Because anterior approach is
D

performed near to vital anatomic elements, especially when it is necessary to do multilevel

corpectomy, intraoperative blood loss, surgical duration, and spinal cord injuries increase.
TE

Therefore, overall, posterior cervical fusion is associated with less complication rate
compared with anterior cervical fusion surgeries.
C EP

SUMMARY
AC

The stepwise surgical approach for management of CSM is summarized in Figure 1. The
patients with CSM should be managed according to cervical sagittal balance. Accordingly,
patients will be divided into cervical lordosis, straightened spine and kyphotic deformity. In
those with cervical lordosis, the number of involved levels is the key point in patient selection
for surgical intervention. Those with less than 3 involved levels benefit from ACDF or
arthroplasty while those with 3 or more involved levels require laminoplasty. In those with
straightened spine, number of levels is a determinant factor in choosing the appropriate
19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
surgical approach. The patients with 3 or less involved levels, ACDF with anterior cervical
plate is adequate. However, in those with more than 3 involved levels and spine instability,
posterior decompression and fusion is required (Figure 2). In those without cervical spine
instability, age is a determining factor. In old patients (>65 years) and ankylosed spine,
laminectomy is necessary while in youths without ankylosis, laminoplasty is adequate. The
surgical management of CSM in patients with mild local kyphosis (kyphotic angle ≤ 10°) is

PT
the same as patients with straightened spine. However, severe kyphosis requires more
complex surgical procedures. Cervical traction in this group of patients would differentiate

RI
reducible from irreducible cervical kyphotic deformities. Reducible severe kyphosis is
successfully treated by posterior decompression and fusion (Figure 3). Irreducible cervical

SC
kyphosis with less than 2 involved levels is treated by ACDF, but those with more than 2
involved levels require ACCF and the evaluation of cervical MRI regarding the patency of the
canal and the characteristics of SAS. In patients with patent SAS, only posterior fusion is

U
adequate while in those with closed SAS, posterior decompression and posterior fusion would
AN
be required. As there is no simple and holistic approach, designing such an algorithm can be
useful and can form the basis for future studies. This stepwise surgical approach enables the
M

spine surgeons to choose the appropriate surgical intervention for the appropriate patient.
D

CONCLUSION
TE

Surgical management of CSM has evolved significantly during the recent decade. However,
there is no precise surgical approach or guideline available for CSM. There are many surgical
EP

options for CSM, and each patient should have a surgical plan tailored to address each
individual’s unique clinical circumstance. This paper provides a stepwise evidence-based
C

surgical approach for the management and treatment of patients with CSM. This can help the
AC

spine surgeons manage the patients with CSM according to the available evidences in a
stepwise approach.

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
REFERENCES

1. Boogaarts HD, Bartels RH. Prevalence of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J.
2015;24:139-141.

2. Kleinman N, Patel AA, Benson C, Macario A, Kim M, Biondi DM. Economic burden of
back and neck pain: effect of a neuropathic component. Popul Health Manag. 2014;17:224-

PT
232.

RI
3. Northover J, Wild J, Braybrooke J, Blanco J. The epidemiology of cervical spondylotic
myelopathy. Skeletal radiol. 2012;41:1543-1546.

SC
4. Wu JC, Ko CC, Yen YS, Huang WC, Chen YC, Liu L, et al. Epidemiology of cervical
spondylotic myelopathy and its risk of causing spinal cord injury: a national cohort study.

U
Neurosurg Focus. 2013;35:E10.
AN
5. Komotar RJ, Mocco J, Kaiser MG. Surgical management of cervical myelopathy:
indications and techniques for laminectomy and fusion. Spine J. 2006;6:252S-267S
M

6. Muthukumar N. Surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurol India.

2012;60:201-209.
D

7. Rhee JM, Shamji MF, Erwin WM, Bransford RJ, Yoon ST, Smith JS, et al. Nonoperative
TE

management of cervical myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).

2013;38:S55-S67.
EP

8. Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Yoon ST, Rhee JM, Shamji MF, Lawrence BD. Symptomatic
progression of cervical myelopathy and the role of nonsurgical management: a consensus
C

statement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:S19-S20.

AC

9. Karadimas SK, Erwin WM, Ely CG, Dettori JR, Fehlings MG. Pathophysiology and
natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:S21-S36.

10. Ghogawala Z, Coumans JV, Benzel EC, Stabile LM, Barker FG II. Ventral versus dorsal
decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgeons' assessment of eligibility for
randomization in a proposed randomized controlled trial: results of a survey of the Cervical
Spine Research Society. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:429-436.
21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
11. Fehlings MG, Kopjar B, Defino H, Kale S, Barbagallo G, Bartels R, et al. International
variations in the clinical presentation and management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy
(CSM). One year outcomes of the AOSpine Multi-center Prospective study. Presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. Denver: Colarado;
2011.

12. Cabraja M, Abbushi A, Koeppen D, Kroppenstedt S, Woiciechowsky C. Comparison

PT
between anterior and posterior decompression with instrumentation for cervical spondylotic
myelopathy: sagittal alignment and clinical outcome. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28:E15.

RI
13. Lawrence BD, Jacobs WB, Norvell DC, Hermsmeyer JT, Chapman JR, Brodke DS.

SC
Anterior versus posterior approach for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a
systematic review. Spine. 2013;38:S173-S182.

U
14. Convergence 2015. Annual report to the community. Selected stories: Targeting the best
AN
approach for neck pain. Clinical Neurosciences Center, University of Utah Health Care.
https://healthcare.utah.edu/neurosciences/docs/convergence-2015.pdf; 2016 Accessed
M

11.05.2016.

15. Hsu W, Dorsi MJ, Witham TF. Surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
D

Neurosurg Q. 2009;19:302-307.
TE

16. Mattei TA, Goulart CR, Milano JB, Dutra LP, Fasset DR. Cervical spondylotic
myelopathy: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and surgical techniques. ISRN Neurol.
EP

2011;2011:463729.

17. Tracy JA, Bartleson JD. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurologist. 2010;16:176-187.
C
AC

18. Boakye M, Patil CG, Santarelli J, Ho C, Tian W, Lad SP. Cervical spondylotic
myelopathy: complications and outcomes after spinal fusion. Neurosurgery. 2008;62:455-462.

19. Gore DR, Sepic SB, Gardner GM. Roentgenographic findings of the cervical spine in
asymptomatic people. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1986;11:521-524.

20. Toledano M, Bartleson JD. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurol Clin. 2013;31:287-
305.
22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
21. Yarbrough CK, Murphy RK, Ray WZ, Stewart TJ. The natural history and clinical
presentation of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Adv Orthop. 2012;2012:480643.

22. Wu JC, Chen YC, Liu L, Chen TJ, Huang WC, Cheng H, et al. Effects of age, gender, and
socio-economic status on the incidence of spinal cord injury: an assessment using the eleven-
year comprehensive nationwide database of Taiwan. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29:889-897.

PT
23. Radhakrishnan K, Litchy WJ, O'Fallon WM, Kurland LT. Epidemiology of cervical
radiculopathy. A population-based study from Rochester, Minnesota, 1976 through 1990.

RI
Brain. 1994;117:325-335.

24. Salemi G, Savettieri G, Meneghini F, Di Benedetto ME, Ragonese P, Morgante L, et al.

SC
Prevalence of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: a door-to-door survey in a Sicilian
municipality. Acta Neurol Scand. 1996;93:184-188.

U
25. Hattou L, Morandi X, Le Reste PJ, Guillin R, Riffaud L, Hénaux PL. Dynamic cervical
AN
myelopathy in young adults. Eur Spine J. 2014;23:1515-1522.
M

26. Morishita Y, Naito M, Hymanson H, Miyazaki M, Wu G, Wang JC. The relationship

between the cervical spinal canal diameter and the pathological changes in the cervical spine.
D

Eur Spine J. 2009;18:877-883.

TE

27. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Maiman DJ, Goel VK. Contribution of disc
degeneration to osteophyte formation in the cervical spine: a biomechanical investigation. J
Orthop Res. 2001;19:977-984.
EP

28. Lebl DR, Hughes A, Cammisa FP Jr, O'Leary PF. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy:
C

pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and treatment. HSS J. 2011;7:170-178.

AC

29. Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednarík J, Smrcka V, Krbec M, Chaloupka R, et al. Predictive

factors for spondylotic cervical myelopathy treated conservatively or surgically. Eur J Neurol.
2005;12:55-63.

30. Oshima Y, Seichi A, Takeshita K, Chikuda H, Ono T, Baba S, et al. Natural course and
prognostic factors in patients with mild cervical spondylotic myelopathy with increased signal
intensity on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Spine. 2012;37:1909-1913.

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
31. Shimomura T, Sumi M, Nishida K, Maeno K, Tadokoro K, Miyamoto H, et al. Prognostic
factors for deterioration of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy after nonsurgical
treatment. Spine. 2007;32:2474-2479.

32. Matz PG, Anderson PA, Holly LT, Groff MW, Heary RF, Kaiser MG, et al. The natural
history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11:104-111.

PT
33. Dvorak J, Sutter M, Herdmann J. Cervical myelopathy: clinical and neurophysiological
evaluation. Eur Spine J. 2003;12:S181-S187.

RI
34. Karlikaya G, Citci B, Bingol CA, Naderi S. Electrodiagnostic evaluation in cervical

SC
spondylothic myelopathy. WSJ. 2008;3:70-75.

35. Salvi FJ, Jones JC, Weigert BJ. The assessment of cervical myelopathy. Spine J.

U
2006;6:182S-189S.
AN
36. Chomiak J, Dvorak J, Antinnes J, Sandler A. Motor evoked potentials: appropriate
positioning of recording electrodes for diagnosis of spinal disorders. Eur Spine J. 1995;4:180-
M

185.
D

37. Lyu RK, Tang LM, Chen CJ, Chen CM, Chang HS, Wu YR. The use of evoked potentials
for clinical correlation and surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy with
TE

intramedullary high signal intensity on MRI. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. 2004;75:256-

261.
EP

38. Noordhout AM, Myressiotis S, Delvaux V, Born JD, Delwaide PJ. Motor and
somatosensory evoked potentials in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Electroencephalogr
C

Clin Neurophysiol. 1998;108:24-31.

AC

39. Vohanka S, Dvorak J. Motor and somatosensory evoked potentials in cervical spinal
stenosis. 1993. Presented at the 40th Congress of the Czech and Slovak Neurophysiology,
Brno.

40. Bednarik J, Kadanka Z, Vohanka S, Novotny O, Surelova D, Filipovicova D, et al. The

value of somatosensory and motor evoked potentials in pre-clinical spondylotic cervical cord
compression. Eur Spine J. 1998;7:493-500.
24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
41. Simó M, Szirmai I, Arányi Z. Superior sensitivity of motor over somatosensory evoked
potentials in the diagnosis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur J Neurol. 2004;11:621-
626.

42. Kaneko K, Taguchi T, Morita H, Yonemura H, Fujimoto H, Kawai S. Mechanism of

prolonged central motor conduction time in compressive cervical myelopathy. Clin
Neurophysiol. 2001;112:1035-1040.

PT
43. Gómez-Fernández L, Minou-Báez M, Cabrera-Gómez JA. Sensitivity of motor evoked

RI
potentials in detecting cortico-spinal lesions in patients with multiple sclerosis. Rev Neurol.
1999;28:357-360.

SC
44. Dugoni DE, Mancarella C, Landi A, Tarantino R, Ruggeri AG, Delfini R. Post
laminoplasty cervical kyphosis-Case report. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2014;5:853-857.

U
AN
45. Misra UK, Kalita J. Motor evoked potential is useful for monitoring the effect of collar
therapy in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurol Sci. 1998;154:222-228.
M

46. Lo YL, Chan LL, Lim W, Tan SB, Tan CT, Chen JL, et al. Clinical evaluation of
magnetic stimulation in cervical spondylosis. Br J Neurosurg. 1989;4:541-548.
D

47. Lo YL, Chan LL, Lim W, Tan SB, Tan CT, Chen JL, et al. Transcranial magnetic
TE

stimulation screening for cord compression in cervical spondylosis. J Neurol Sci.

2006;244:17-21.
EP

48. Tsiptsios I, Fotiou F, Sitzoglou K, Fountoulakis KN. Neurophysiological investigation of

cervical spondylosis. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 2001;41:305-513.
C
AC

49. Kang DX, Fan DS. The electrophysiological study of differential diagnosis between
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Electromyogr Clin
Neurophysiol. 1995;35:231-238.

50. Di Lazzaro V, Restuccia D, Colosimo C, Tonali P. The contribution of magnetic

stimulation of the motor cortex to the diagnosis of cervical spondylothic myelopathy.
Correlation of central motor conduction to distal and proximal upper limb muscles with
clinical and MRI findings. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1992;85:311-320.
25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
51. De Mattei M, Paschero B, Sciarretta A, Davini O, Cocito D. Usefulness of motor evoked
potentials in compressive myelopathy. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1993;33:205-216.

52. Tanaka M, Dvorak J. The evaluation of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) by magnetic
stimulation in cervial spondylotic myelopathy. Neuroorthopedics. 1999;125:75-89.

53. Kalupahana, NS. Neurophysiological evaluation of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and

PT
radiculopathy, University of Peradeniya UP (MED), XIV, 135p.
http://imsear.hellis.org/handle/123456789/129688; 2006 Accessed 15.05.2016.

RI
54. Fehlings MG, Gray R. Importance of sagittal balance in determining the outcome of

SC
anterior versus posterior surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. . J Neurosurg Spine.
2009;11:518-520.

U
55. Lamartina C, Berjano P, Petruzzi M, Sinigaglia A, Casero G, Cecchinato R, et al. Criteria
AN
to restore the sagittal balance in deformity and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J.
2012;21:S27-S31.
M

56. Naderi S, Benzel EC, Baldwin NG. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical decision
making. Neurosurg Focus. 1996;1:e1.
D

57. Guérin P, Obeid I, Gille O, Bourghli A, Luc S, Pointillart V, et al. Sagittal alignment after
TE

single cervical disc arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012;25:10-16.

58. Gum JL, Glassman SD, Douglas LR, Carreon LY. Correlation between cervical spine
EP

sagittal alignment and clinical outcome after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Am Am
J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2012;41:E81-E84.
C

59. Ahn PG, Kim KN, Moon SW, Kim KS. Changes in cervical range of motion and sagittal
AC

alignment in early and late phases after total disc replacement: radiographic follow-up
exceeding 2 years: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11:688-695.

60. Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F. The impact of
positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine. 2005;30:2024-2029.

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
61. Chi JH, Tay B, Stahl D, Lee R. Complex deformities of the cervical spine. Neurosurg Clin
N Am. 2007;18:295-304.

62. Steinmetz MP, Stewart TJ, Kager CD, Benzel EC, Vaccaro AR. Cervical deformity
correction. Neurosurgery. 2007;60:S90-S97.

63. Tang JA, Scheer JK, Smith JS, Deviren V, Bess S, Hart RA, et al. The impact of standing

PT
regional cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes in posterior cervical fusion surgery.
Neurosurgery. 2012;71:662-669.

RI
64. Villavicencio AT, Babuska JM, Ashton A, Busch E, Roeca C, Nelson EL, et al.
Prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study evaluating the correlation of clinical

SC
outcomes and cervical sagittal alignment. Neurosurgery. 2011;68:1309-1316.

U
65. Fraser JF, Härtl R. Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a metaanalysis of
fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6:298-303.
AN
66. Han YC, Liu ZQ, Wang SJ, Li LJ, Tan J. Is anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
superior to corpectomy and fusion for treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic
M

myelopathy? A systemic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e87191.

D

67. Li Z, Yu S, Zhao Y, Hou S, Fu Q, Li F, et al. Clinical and radiologic comparison of

TE

dynamic cervical implant arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the
treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease. J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21:942-948.
EP

68. Huang ZY, Wu AM, Li QL, Lei T, Wang KY, Xu HZ, et al. Comparison of two anterior
fusion methods in two-level cervical spondylosis myelopathy: a meta-analysis. BMJ Open.
C

2014;4:e004581.
AC

69. Zhu R, Yang H, Wang Z, Wang G, Shen M, Yuan Q. Comparisons of three anterior
cervical surgeries in treating cervical spondylotic myelopathy. BMC Musculoskelet Disord.
2014;15:233.

70. 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-S209.

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
71. Fay LY, Huang WC, Tsai TY, Wu JC, Ko CC, Tu TH, et al. Differences between
arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion in two-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Eur
Spine J. 2014;23:627-634.

72. Della Pepa GM, Roselli R, La Rocca G, Spallone A, Barbagallo G, Visocchi M.

Laminoplasty is better of laminectomy in cervical stenotic myelopathy: myth or truth? Eur
Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2014;18:50-54.

PT
73. Lao L, Zhong G, Li X, Qian L, Liu Z. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy for multi-level

RI
cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review of the literature. J Orthop Surg Res.
2013;8:45.

SC
74. Liu X, Wang H, Zhou Z, Jin A. Anterior decompression and fusion versus posterior
laminoplasty for multilevel cervical compressive myelopathy. Orthopedics. 2014;37:e117-

U
e122.
AN
75. Yonenobu K, Yamamoto T, Ono K. Laminoplasty for myelopathy: indications, results,
outcomes, and complications. In: Clark CR, ed. The Cervical Spine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia:
M

Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1998:849-64.

D

76. Itoh T, Tsuji H. Technical improvements and results of laminoplasty for compressive
myelopathy in the cervical spine. Spine. 1985;10:729-736.
TE

77. Hirabayashi K, Satomi K. Operative procedure and results of expansive open-door

EP

laminoplasty. Spine. 1988;13:870-876.

78. Kawai S, Sunago K, Doi K, Saika M, Taguchi T. Cervical laminoplasty (Hattori’s

C

method). Procedure and follow-up results. Spine. 1988;13:1245-1250.

AC

79. Fukui K, Kataoka O, Sho T, Sumi M. Pathomechanism, pathogenesis, and results of

treatment in cervical spondylotic myelopathy caused by dynamic canal stenosis. Spine.
1990;15:1148-1152.

80. Hase H, Watanabe T, Hirasawa Y, Hashimoto H, Miyamoto T, Chatani K, et al. Bilateral

open laminoplasty using ceramic laminas for cervical myelopathy. Spine. 1991;16:1269-1276.

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
81. Satomi K, Nishu Y, Kohno T, Hirabayashi K. Long-term follow-up studies of open-door
expansive laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine. 1994;19:507-510.

82. Seichi A, Takeshita K, Ohishi I, Kawaguchi H, Akune T, Anamizu Y, et al. Long-term

results of double-door laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine. 2001;26:479-487.

83. Takayasu M, Hara M, Yamauchi K, Yoshida M, Yoshida J. Transarticular screw fixation

PT
in the middle and lower cervical spine. Technical note. J Neurosurg. 2003;99:132-136.

RI
84. Matsumoto M, Nojiri K, Chiba K, Toyama Y, Fukui Y, Kamata M. Open-door
laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy resulting from adjacent-segment disease in patients with

SC
previous anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31:1332-
1337.

U
85. Seichi A, Hoshino Y, Kimura A, Nakahara S, Watanabe M, Kato T, et al. Neurological
complications of cervical laminoplasty for patients with ossification of the posterior
AN
longitudinal ligament-a multi-institutional retrospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).
2011;36:E998-E1003.
M

86. Sakaura H, Hosono N, Mukai Y, Ishii T, Yoshikawa H. C5 palsy after decompression

D

surgery for cervical myelopathy: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).
2003;28:2447-2451.
TE

87. Lee DH, Park SA, Kim NH, Hwang CJ, Kim YT, Lee CS, et al. Laminar closure after
classic Hirabayashi open-door laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:E1634-E1640.
EP

88. Wei W, Liao S, Shi S, Fei J, Wang Y, Chen C. Straightened cervical lordosis causes stress
C

concentration: a finite element model study. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2013;36:27-33.
AC

89. Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Janik TJ, William Jones E, Cailliet R, Normand M.
Comparison of axial and flexural stresses in lordosis and three buckled configurations of the
cervical spine. Clin Biomech. 2001;16:276-284.

90. Harrison DE, Jones EW, Janik TJ, Harrison DD. Evaluation of axial and flexural stresses
in the vertebral body cortex and trabecular bone in lordosis and two sagittal cervical

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
translation configurations with an elliptical shell model. J Manipulative Physiol Ther.
2002;25:391-401.

91. Takeshima T, Omokawa S, Takaoka T, Araki M, Ueda Y, Takakura Y. Sagittal alignment

of cervical flexion and extension: lateral radiographic analysis. Spine 2002;27:E348-E355.

92. Boyle JJ, Milne N, Singer KP. Influence of age on cervicothoracic spinal curvature: an ex

PT
vivo radiographic survey. Clin Biomech. 2002;17:361-367.

RI
93. Steinmetz MP, Kager CD, Benzel EC. Ventral correction of postsurgical cervical
kyphosis. J Neurosurg. 2003;98:1-7.

SC
94. Baba H, Maezawa Y, Uchida K, Furusawa N, Wada M, Imura S. Plasticity of the spinal
cord contributes to neurological improvement after treatment by cervical decompression. A

U
magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurol. 1997;244:455-460.
AN
95. Baba H, Uchida K, Maezawa Y, Furusawa N, Azuchi M, Imura S. Lordotic alignment and
posterior migration of the spinal cord following en bloc open-door laminoplasty for cervical
M

myelopathy: a magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurol. 1996;243:626-632.

96. Henderson FC, Geddes JF, Vaccaro AR, Woodard E, Berry KJ, Benzel EC. Stretch-
D

associated injury in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: new concept and review. Neurosurgery.
TE

2005;56:1101-1113.

97. Kohno M, Takahashi H, Yagishita A, Tanabe H. "Disproportion theory" of the cervical

EP

spine and spinal cord in patients with juvenile cervical flexion myelopathy. A study
comparing cervical magnetic resonance images with those of normal controls. Surg Neurol.
C

1998;50:421-430.
AC

98. Miura J, Doita M, Miyata K, Marui T, Nishida K, Fujii M, et al. Dynamic evaluation of
the spinal cord in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy using a kinematic magnetic
resonance imaging technique. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009;22:8-13.

99. Papadopoulos EC, Huang RC, Girardi FP, Synnott K, Cammisa FP Jr. Three-level
anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plate fixation: radiographic and clinical results.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31:897-902.

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
100. Stewart TJ, Schlenk RP, Benzel EC. Multiple level discectomy and fusion.
Neurosurgery. 2007;60:S143-S148.

101. Xiao SW, Jiang H, Yang LJ, Xiao ZM. Anterior cervical discectomy versus corpectomy
for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:31-39.

102. Dadashev VY, Rodts Jr GE. Treatment of disk and ligamentous diseases of the cervical

PT
spine. In: Winn HR, ed. Youmans Neurological Surgery. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB
Saunders; 2011:2859–2867.

RI
103. Demircan MN, Kutlay AM, Colak A, Kaya S, Tekin T, Kibici K, et al. Multilevel

SC
cervical fusion without plates, screws or autogenous iliac crest bone graft. J Clin Neurosci.
2007;14:723-728.

U
104. Park Y, Maeda T, Cho W, Riew KD. Comparison of anterior cervical fusion after two-
level discectomy or single-level corpectomy: sagittal alignment, cervical lordosis, graft
AN
collapse, and adjacent-level ossification. Spine J. 2010;10:193-199.
M

105. Houten JK, Cooper PR. Laminectomy and posterior cervical plating for multilevel
cervical spondylotic myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament:
D

effects on cervical alignment, spinal cord compression, and neurological outcome.

Neurosurgery. 2003;52:1081-1088.
TE

106. Qian L, Shao J, Liu Z, Cheng L, Zeng Z, Jia Y, et al. Comparison of the safety and
efficacy of anterior 'skip' corpectomy versus posterior decompression in the treatment of
EP

cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Orthop Surg Res. 2014;9:63.

C

107. Zdeblick TA, Zou D, Warden KE, McCabe R, Kunz D, Vanderby R. Cervical stability
after foraminotomy. A biomechanical in vitro analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74:22-27.
AC

108. Herkowitz HN. A comparison of anterior cervical fusion, cervical laminectomy, and
cervical laminoplasty for the surgical management of multiple level spondylotic
radiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988;13:774-780.

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
109. Hong-Wan N, Ee-Chon T, Qing-Hang Z. Biomechanical effects of C2-C7 intersegmental
stability due to laminectomy with unilateral and bilateral facetectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).
2004;29:1737-1746.

110. Kode S, Kallemeyn NA, Smucker JD, Fredericks DC, Grosland NM. The effect of multi-
level laminoplasty and laminectomy on the biomechanics of the cervical spine: a finite
element study. Iowa Orthop J. 2014;34:150-157.

PT
111. Ludwig SC, Kramer DL, Balderston RA, Vaccaro AR, Foley KF, Albert TJ. Placement

RI
of pedicle screws in the human cadaveric cervical spine: comparative accuracy of three
techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:1655-1667.

SC
112. Heller JG, Silcox DH 3rd, Sutterlin CE 3rd. Complications of posterior cervical plating.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20:2442-2448.

U
113. Spivak J, Giordano CP. Cervical kyphosis. In: Bridwell KH, DeWald RL, eds. The
AN
Textbook of Spinal Surgery. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1997;1027-1038.
M

114. Ganju A, Ondra SL, Shaffrey CI. Cervical kyphosis. Tech Orthop. 2003;17:345-354.

115. Van Geest S, De Vormer AM, Arts MP, Peul WC, Vleggeert-Lankamp CL. Long-term
D

follow-up of clinical and radiological outcome after cervical laminectomy. Eur Spine J.
TE

2015;24:229-235.

116. Butler JC, Whitecloud TS 3rd. Postlaminectomy kyphosis: causes and surgical
EP

management. Clin Orthop North Am. 1992;23:505-511.

C

117. Albert TJ, Vacarro A. Postlaminectomy kyphosis. Spine. 1998;23:2738-2745.

AC

118. Ferch RD, Shad A, Cadoux-Hudson TA, Teddy PJ. Anterior correction of cervical
kyphotic deformity: effects on myelopathy, neck pain, and sagittal alignment. J Neurosurg.
2004;100:13-19.

119. Gülmen V, Zileli M. Surgical treatment of postlaminectomy cervical kyphosis. Turk

Neurosurg. 2000;10:28-35.

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
120. Herman JM, Sonntag VK. Cervical corpectomy and plate fixation for postlaminectomy
kyphosis. J Neurosurg. 1994;80:963-970.

121. Park Y, Riew KD, Cho W. The long-term results of anterior surgical reconstruction in
patients with postlaminectomy cervical kyphosis. Spine J. 2010;10:380-387.

122. Zdeblick TA, Hughens SS, Riew KD, Bohlman HH. Failed anterior cervical discectomy

PT
and arthrodesis. Analysis and treatment of thirty-five patients. J Bone and Jt Surg Am.
1997;79:523-532.

RI
123. Mummaneni PV, Dhall SS, Rodts GE, Haid RW. Circumferential fusion for cervical

SC
kyphotic deformity. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;9:515-521.

124. Nottmeier EW, Deen HG, Patel N, Birch B. Cervical kyphotic deformity correction

U
using 360-degree reconstruction. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009;22:385-391.
AN
125. O'Shaughnessy BA, Liu JC, Hsieh PC, Koski TR, Ganju A, Ondra SL. Surgical
treatment of fixed cervical kyphosis with myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:771-
M

778.
D

126. Han K, Lu C, Li J, Xiong GZ, Wang B, Lv GH, et al. Surgical treatment of cervical
kyphosis. Eur Spine J. 2011;20:523-536.
TE

127. Harrison DE, Cailliet R, Harrison DD, Janik TJ, Holland B. A new 3-point bending
EP

traction method for restoring cervical lordosis and cervical manipulation: a nonrandomized
clinical controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:447-453.
C

128. Abumi K, Shono Y, Taneichi H, Ito M, Kaneda K. Correction of cervical kyphosis using
AC

pedicle screw fixation systems. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24:2389-2396.

129. Uchida K, Nakajima H, Sato R, Yayama T, Mwaka ES, Kobayashi S, et al. Cervical
spondylotic myelopathy associated with kyphosis or sagittal sigmoid alignment: outcome
after anterior or posterior decompression. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11:521-528.

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
130. Chiba K, Toyama Y, Watanabe M, Maruiwa H, Matsumoto M, Hirabayashi K. Impact of
longitudinal distance of the cervical spine on the results of expansive open-door laminoplasty.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:2893-2898.

131. 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:1258-1262.

PT
132. Baba H, Maezawa Y, Furusawa N, Imura S, Tomita K. Flexibility and alignment of the

RI
cervical spine after laminoplasty for spondylotic myelopathy. A radiographic study. Int
Orthop. 1995;19:116-121.

SC
133. Zdeblick TA, Bohlman HH. Cervical kyphosis and myelopathy. Treatment by anterior
corpectomy and strut-grafting. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71:170-182.

U
AN
134. Rhee JM, Basra S. Posterior surgery for cervical myelopathy: Laminectomy,
M

laminectomy with fusion, and laminoplasty. Asian Spine J. 2008;2:114-126.

135. Edwards CC 2nd, Heller JG, Murakami H. Corpectomy versus laminoplasty for
D

multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched-cohort analysis. Spine (Phila Pa

TE

1976). 2002;27:1168-1175.

136. Lu J, Wu X, Li Y, Kong X. Surgical results of anterior corpectomy in the aged patients

EP

with cervical myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2008;17:129-135.

137. Kimura H, Shikata J, Odate S, Soeda T. Anterior corpectomy and fusion to C2 for
C

cervical myelopathy: clinical results and complications. Eur Spine J. 2014;23:1491-1501.

AC

138. Hirabayashi K, Bohlman HH. Multilevel cervical spondylosis. Laminoplasty versus

anterior decompression. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20:1732-1734.

139. Kotil K, Tari R. Two level cervical corpectomy with iliac crest fusion and rigid plate
fixation: a retrospective study with a three-year follow-up. Turk Neurosurg. 2011;21:606-612.

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
140. Wei-bing X, Wun-Jer S, Gang L, Yue Z, Ming-xi J, Lian-shun J. Reconstructive
techniques study after anterior decompression of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009;22:511-515.

141. Anderson PA, Matz PG, Groff MW, Heary RF, Holly LT, Kaiser MG, et al.
Laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical degenerative myelopathy. J Neurosurg
Spine. 2009;11:150-156.

PT
142. Hamanishi C, Tanaka S. Bilateral multilevel laminectomy with or without posterolateral

RI
fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Relationship to type of onset and time until
operation. J Neurosurg. 1996;85:447-451.

SC
143. Mummaneni PV, Kaiser MG, Matz PG, Anderson PA, Groff MW, Heary RF, et al.
Cervical surgical techniques for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J
Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11:130-141.
U
AN
144. Ryken TC, Heary RF, Matz PG, Anderson PA, Groff MW, Holly LT, et al. Cervical
laminectomy for the treatment of cervical degenerative myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine.
M

2009;11:142-149.
D

145. Brodsky AE, Khalil MA, Sassard WR, Newman BP. Repair of symptomatic
TE

pseudoarthrosis of anterior cervical fusion. Spine. 1992;17:1137-1143.

146. Carreon L, Glassman SD, Campbell MJ. Treatment of anterior cervical pseudoarthrosis:
EP

posterior fusion versus anterior revision. Spine J. 2006;6:154-156.

147. Farey ID, McAffee PC, Davis RF, Long DM. Pseudoarthrosis of the cervical spine after
C

anterior arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:1171-1177.

AC

148. Huang RC, Girardi FP, Poynton AR, Cammisa FP Jr. Treatment of multilevel cervical
spondylotic myeloradiculopathy with posterior decompression and fusion with lateral mass
plate fixation and local bone graft. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16:123-129.

149. Kuhns CA, Geck MJ, Wang JC, Delemarter RB. An outcomes analysis of the treatment
of cervical pseudoarthrosis with posterior fusion. Spine. 2005;30:2424-2429.

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
150. Lovely T, Carl A. Posterior cervical spine fusion with tension band wiring. J Neurosurg.
1995;83:631-635.

151. Sawin PD, Traynelis VC, Menezes MD. A comparative analysis of fusion rates and
donor-site morbidity for autogeneic rib and iliac crest bone grafts in posterior cervical fusions.
J Neurosurg. 1998;88:255-265.

PT
152. Sembrano JN, Mehbod AA, Garvey TA, Denis F, Perra JH, Schwender JD, et al. A
concomitant posterior approach improves fusion rates but not overall reoperation rates in

RI
multilevel cervical fusion for spondylosis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009;22:162-169.

SC
153. Rao RD, Madom IA. Cervical laminectomy and fusion. In: Wang JC, ed. Advanced
Reconstruction Spine. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons;2011:97-104.

U
154. Scioscia T, Crowl AC. Posterior subaxial cervical fusion. In: Wang JC, ed. Advanced
AN
Reconstruction Spine. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons;2011:89-95.

155. Buerba RA, Fu MC, Grauer JN. Anterior and posterior cervical fusion in patients with
M

high body mass index are not associated with greater complications. Spine J. 2014;14:1643-
1653.
D

156. Wang MC, Chan L, Maiman DJ, Kreuter W, Deyo RA. Complications and mortality
TE

associated with cervical spine surgery for degenerative disease in the United States. Spine
(Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:342-347.
C EP
AC

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
FIGURE LEGENDS:

Figure 1. Algorithm for surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Figure 2. (A, B) The preoperative MRI of a 78-year-old man with recent quadriparesis
showed severe spinal cord compression. (C, D) Dynamic X-ray showed instability
(anterolisthesis) at C3-C4 level. (E) CTs did not show ossified posterior longitudinal

PT
ligament with mild kyphosis. (F, G, H) Posterior decompression was done by laminectomy
of C3 to C7 levels with lateral mass screw fusion from C3 to C6. Spinal cord was

RI
significantly decompressed and solid fusion was achieved.

SC
Figure 3. (A, B) The initial preoperative MRI of a 73 year-old-man with paraparesis since 9
months showed kyphotic angle at C4–C5 level about 30° degree. (C) Relative alignment after
7 kg cervical traction was achieved. (D) Posterior decompression and solid lateral mass screw

U
fusion was performed. Spinal cord has been significantly decompressed with good sagittal
AN
balance. During one year follow-up, the patient was recovered significantly.
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Abbreviations:

CSM: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy

ACDF: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

QOL: Quality of life

PT
EMG: Electromyography

ENG: Electroneurography

RI
SEPs: Sensory evoked potentials

SC
AS: Ankylosing spondylitis

SVA: Sagittal vertical axis

U
NDI: Neck disability index
AN
DCI: Dynamic cervical implant

ACCF: Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion

M

MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging

SAS: Subarachnoid space

D

CSF: Cerebrospinal fluid

TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Conflict of Interest
'Conflicts of interest: none'

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC