Journals / Anatolian Current Medical Journal / 2026 / Volume: 8 Issue: 3

Surgical treatment outcomes in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a retrospective analysis of 32 patients and evaluation of prognostic factors

Ali Maksut Aykut(HATAY MUSTAFA KEMAL UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-7651-7132
Mustafa Emrah Kaya(Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi)0000-0003-4118-8129
Mustafa Aras(ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-7892-3129
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-05-22
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings suggest that satisfactory functional outcomes can be achieved across a diverse patient population, though larger studies are needed to definitively establish the role of these factors.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent surgical treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and to identify prognostic factors.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Thirty-two patients who underwent surgical treatment for CSM at our clinic between 2019 and 2024 were retrospectively analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings suggest that satisfactory functional outcomes can be achieved across a diverse patient population, though larger studies are needed to definitively establish the role of these factors.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Cervical spondylotic myelopathy · surgical treatment · modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent surgical treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and to identify prognostic factors. Methods: Thirty-two patients who underwent surgical treatment for CSM at our clinic between 2019 and 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic characteristics, preoperative and postoperative modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scores, Nurick scores, radiological parameters, and complications were recorded. Radiological measurements were performed by two independent observers, with excellent inter-observer reliability (ICC=0.92 for compression ratio, ICC=0.89 for Cobb angle). The effects of T2 hyperintensity severity, presence of OPLL (Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament), age, compression ratio, and number of compression levels on surgical outcomes were analyzed using correlation analysis, comparative tests, and multivariate linear regression. The median follow-up period was 6.0 months (IQR: 3.0-12.0 months; range: 1-48 months). Results: Of the 32 patients included in the study, 27 (84.4%) were male and 5 (15.6%) were female. The mean age was 57.6±9.2 years (range: 42-73 years). The mean preoperative mJOA score was 9.78±4.02, which increased to 15.44±2.90 postoperatively (p<0.001). The mean neurological recovery rate calculated using the Hirabayashi formula (27) was 73.0±22.2%. Nurick scores significantly improved from 3.00±1.30 preoperatively to 0.91±1.20 postoperatively (p<0.001). Marked T2-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) hyperintensity was detected in 71.9% of patients. OPLL was present in 40.6% of patients. The mean preoperative spinal cord compression ratio was 47.0±10.9%. Correlation analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between preoperative mJOA score and recovery rate (r=0.551, p=0.001). Multivariate linear regression analysis confirmed that preoperative mJOA score was the only independent predictor of recovery rate (β=0.551, p=0.001), while T2 hyperintensity severity (p=0.513), presence of OPLL (p=0.079), age (p=0.984), compression ratio (p=0.645), and number of levels (p=0.631) did not show significant independent associations. Post-hoc power analysis revealed that the study had 80% power to detect large effect sizes (Cohen’s d ≥0.90) but was underpowered for moderate effects. Only one patient (3.1%) developed pulmonary embolism as a complication. Conclusion: Surgical treatment in CSM provides significant improvement in mJOA and Nurick scores with a low complication rate. Preoperative mJOA score is the most important prognostic factor and emphasizes the importance of early surgical intervention. In this patient cohort, marked T2 hyperintensity, presence of OPLL, high compression ratio, advanced age, and multilevel involvement did not show significant associations with surgical outcomes, though the limited sample size may have precluded detection of moderate effects. These findings suggest that satisfactory functional outcomes can be achieved across a diverse patient population, though larger studies are needed to definitively establish the role of these factors.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aykut, A. M., Kaya, M. E., Serarslan, Y., Aras, M. (2026). Surgical treatment outcomes in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a retrospective analysis of 32 patients and evaluation of prognostic factors. Anatolian Current Medical Journal, Volume: 8 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.38053/acmj.1869745

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (21)

  1. Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: epidemiology, genetics, and pathogenesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(12):E675-E693. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000913
  2. Boogaarts HD, Bartels RH. Prevalence of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2015;24 Suppl 2:139-141. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2781-x
  3. Rao R. Neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, and cervical myelopathy: pathophysiology, natural history, and clinical evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(10):1872-1881. doi:10.2106/00004623-200210000-00021
  4. McCormick WE, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: make the difficult diagnosis, then refer for surgery. Cleve Clin J Med. 2003;70(10):899-904. doi:10.3949/ccjm.70.10.899
  5. Karadimas SK, Erwin WM, Ely CG, Dettori JR, Fehlings MG. Pathophysiology and natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(22 Suppl 1):S21-S36. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f2c3
  6. Toledano M, Bartleson JD. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurol Clin. 2013;31(1):287-305. doi:10.1016/j.ncl.2012.09.003
  7. Benzel EC, Lancon J, Kesterson L, Hadden T. Cervical laminectomy and dentate ligament section for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord. 1991;4(3):286-295. doi:10.1097/00002517-199109000-00005
  8. Nurick S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain. 1972;95(1):87-100. doi:10.1093/brain/95.1.87
  9. Davies BM, Mowforth OD, Smith EK, Kotter MR. Degenerative cervical myelopathy. BMJ. 2018;360:k186. doi:10.1136/bmj.k186
  10. Badhiwala JH, Ahuja CS, Akbar MA, et al. Degenerative cervical myelopathy-update and future directions. Nat Rev Neurol. 2020;16(2):108-124. doi:10.1038/s41582-019-0303-0
  11. Karadimas SK, Gatzounis G, Fehlings MG. Pathobiology of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2015;24 Suppl 2:132-138. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3264-4
  12. Fehlings MG, Ibrahim A, Tetreault L, 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. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(17):1322-1328. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000988
  13. Nouri A, Martin AR, Mikulis D, Fehlings MG. Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of degenerative cervical myelopathy: a review of structural changes and measurement techniques. Neurosurg Focus. 2016;40(6):E5. doi:10.3171/2016.3.FOCUS1667
  14. Matsumoto M, Toyama Y, Ishikawa M, Chiba K, Suzuki N, Fujimura Y. Increased signal intensity of the spinal cord on magnetic resonance images in cervical compressive myelopathy. Does it predict the outcome of conservative treatment? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(6):677-682. doi:10.1097/00007632-200003150-00005
  15. Matsunaga S, Sakou T. Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine: etiology and natural history. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(5):E309-E314. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318241ad33
  16. Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, Maruyama T, Wakano K. Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1981;6(4):354-364. doi:10.1097/00007632-198107000-00005
  17. Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Kopjar B, et al. Efficacy and safety of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results of the AOSpine North America prospective multi-center study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(18):1651-1658. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.00589
  18. Fehlings MG, Tetreault LA, Riew KD, et al. A clinical practice guideline for the management of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy: recommendations for patients with mild, moderate, and severe disease and nonmyelopathic patients with evidence of cord compression. Global Spine J. 2017;7(3 Suppl):70S-83S.
  19. Vedantam A, Rajshekhar V. Does the type of T2-weighted hyperintensity influence surgical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy? A review. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(1):96-106. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2483-9
  20. Martin AR, De Leener B, Cohen-Adad J, et al. Monitoring for myelopathic progression with multiparametric quantitative MRI. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0195733. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195733
  21. Tetreault L, Goldstein CL, Arnold P, et al. Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Spectrum of Related Disorders Affecting the Aging Spine. Neurosurgery. 2015;77 Suppl 4:S51-S67. doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000951