Cervical spondylotic myelopathy …

Saul S Schwarz MD

General Neurology

Updated 10.11.2024
Released 09.21.1998
Expires For CME 10.11.2027

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Author: Saul S Schwarz MD

See Contributor Disclosures

Editor: Randolph W Evans MD

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy

In This Article

Quick Link

Introduction

Overview

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy is a progressive noninflammatory disease process occurring in middle-aged and elderly patients, predominantly affecting the intervertebral discs and facets joints. Narrowing of the spinal canal by osteophytic spurring produces myelopathy by compression of the spinal cord and radiculopathy by compression of the nerve roots. In this updated article, the author presents proper diagnostic criteria, presentation, differential diagnoses, pathophysiology, and treatment options, including the latest imaging criteria and a review of anterior and posterior surgical approaches.

Key points

	• Cervical spondylotic myelopathy is an arthritic condition affecting the cervical facet joints and discs producing bony ridging in the central canal and neural foramina, resulting in compressive signs and symptoms of spinal cord and nerve root compression.
	• Presenting features may involve a mix of upper and lower motor neuron dysfunction in the arms and hands, and upper motor neuron dysfunction in the legs.
	• The diagnosis is established by combining clinical findings with the imaging characteristics of bony narrowing of the central and lateral aspects of the cervical spinal canal, as seen on MRI and CT.
	• Treatment is directed at controlling arthritic axial neck pain, and surgical decompression with or without fusion is considered if signs and symptoms of myelopathy are present.

Historical note and terminology

Cervical spondylosis, often referred to as “hard cervical disc disease,” is a process involving a combination of degenerative changes in the intervertebral disc, the facet joints, and the ligamentum flavum. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy is the most serious consequence of this degenerative process, especially when associated with a congenitally narrow cervical vertebral canal (58). As Benzel has shown, spondylosis is a natural process of aging, is seen in 10% of individuals by the age of 25 years and in 95% by the age of 65 years, and is often preceded by mild segmental instability (16; 100). Dehydration of the disc leads to hardening and calcification with loss of disc resilience; ligamentous laxity provides a compensatory range of motion to the spine; the facet joints tend to enlarge to better share the stress loads, as the ligamentum flavum thickens in an attempt to stabilize the spine (35). The combination of these degenerative changes causing narrowing of the cervical spinal canal (spondylosis) and spinal cord injury (myelopathy) gives rise to the term “cervical spondylotic myelopathy.” It is technically not an arthritis, as degeneration of the intervertebral disc does not primarily involve the synovial membrane. Although the pathological existence of intervertebral disc herniation was realized as early as 1929 by Schmorl and Andrae (27), its clinical correlation with well-described syndromes of compressive myelopathy was not thoroughly reviewed until 1956, when only posterior decompressive surgeries were employed (27). Direct surgical attack on the anterior compressive disc-spur complex was not developed until the late 1950s with the work of Smith and Robinson (101) and Cloward (28). Cervical disc disease with progression to bony ridging and calcification of the posterior longitudinal ligament may occur anywhere in the cervical spine and over several levels, but most commonly is seen at C4-5, C5-6, and C6-7. Because it is a disease process, there is often a combination of stages of degeneration in the individual patient, such that one level may be predominantly a “soft disc” rupture and compression, whereas a more chronically degenerative level may exhibit “hard disc” compression. Either may be centrally located, causing spinal cord compression (myelopathy), laterally protruding into a narrowed foramen causing root compression (radiculopathy), or anterolateral with a mixed clinical picture of myeloradiculopathy.

Clinical manifestations

Presentation and course

Patients with cervical spondylosis usually present with neck pain with or without radiculopathy or myelopathy. Even painless progression of sensorimotor deficit is seen in patients with more centrally located compression, as the roots are relatively spared. Myelopathy develops in approximately 5% to 10% of patients with clinically symptomatic spondylosis (115), but cervical spondylosis is the most common cause of myelopathy in middle-aged and elderly patients (31; 79). It is rarely seen before the age of 40, and often no injury is elicited or the patient reports only a series of minor or repetitive strains.

Because cervical spondylotic myelopathy may involve compression of the descending lateral corticospinal upper motor neuron tracts and ascending dorsal column sensory tracts, as well as compression of the lower motor neuron in the central gray of the spinal cord, patients present with a variety of symptoms. Emphasis should be placed on obtaining a history of numbness and clumsiness in the hands, decreased fine motor movements, and subtle gait disorders. Suspicion of the clinical entity remains the single greatest element in early identification of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

The clinical features, duration, and natural history of this condition vary considerably because of their relationship to the inconstant combination of mechanical, dynamic forces and periods of vascular ischemia (76). Consequently, various patterns of myelopathy have been described. Crandall and Batzdorf classified patients into five groups based on their dominant syndromes (31):

	(1) The transverse syndrome involves the corticospinal, spinothalamic, and dorsal column tracts and produces severe spasticity, frequent sphincter involvement, and Lhermitte sign.
	(2) The motor system syndrome involves the anterior horn cells and corticospinal tracts and produces marked spasticity but no sensory disturbances.
	(3) The central cord syndrome produces severe motor and sensory disturbances with a greater expression of weakness in the upper extremities and spasticity in the lower extremities.
	(4) The Brown-Sequard syndrome produces the typical contralateral sensory deficits and ipsilateral motor deficits.
	(5) The brachialgia and cord syndrome involves the lower motor neurons of the upper extremities and produces radicular pain.

Many patients also present with neck pain due to the degenerative components associated with spondylosis. Though patients may present with a radiculopathy secondary to extensive compression of various roots, it must be noted that cervical radiculopathy is not the main component of the disorder; long track dysfunction is the prerequisite of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Similarly, a significant morbidity arising from cervical spondylosis is due to positional vertebral artery compression rather than spinal cord compression. A dramatic example of posterior circulation compromise due to cervical spondylosis can occur with therapeutic neck manipulation, or even with rotation-extension positions of the neck that may occur during sleep. An elderly patient awakening with acute nausea, vomiting, dysarthria, gait instability, and other signs of brainstem or cerebellar dysfunction should be studied urgently for cerebellar infarction due to cervical spondylotic vertebral artery compression (83).

Headache, or specifically “cervicogenic headache,” frequently accompanies neck pain in the spondylotic population, and one retrospective study found that approximately one third of patients suffered from chronic headache that was relieved in 43% of patients after anterior decompression with fusion (112). Another surgical study found again roughly one third of patients (50 of 166 cases) presenting with neurologic signs of spondylotic myelopathy suffered from chronic neck pains and headache and all patients undergoing anterior decompression with fusion noted significant relief of both neck pain and headache, the latter thought to be neuropathic in nature (89).

An additional presentation of cervical spondylotic myelopathy is posttraumatic central cord syndrome. In these patients, relatively minor trauma can precipitate a neurologically devastating injury. The pathophysiology is thought to involve vascular injury to the relatively poorly perfused medial regions of the cord from buckling of the hypertrophic ligament both anteriorly and posteriorly. Consequently, medial damage leads to preferential damage to the upper extremities. Early stages of spondylotic myelopathy with milder compression often present with hand numbness and complaints of impaired fine motor coordination in such tasks as buttoning a shirt or managing pills in a bottle. One group studying transcortical motor potentials and spinal cord sensory-evoked potentials during surgery found electrophysiologic evidence for this clinical progression, noting that the lateral part of the posterior funiculus mediating upper limb sensory function was more vulnerable to compression than was the lateral corticospinal tract (56).

The physical findings associated with cervical spondylotic myelopathy vary depending on the exact level of compression, the degree of compression modified by aggravating factors, and the span of segments comprised in the cervical spinal cord. Symptoms may be characterized by lower motor neuron involvement at the level of the clinical lesion and upper neuron involvement at the levels below the site of compression. Thus, lower extremity involvement will present with upper motor neuron symptoms, whereas the upper extremities may present with both upper and lower motor neuron involvement depending on the level and the nature of the compression. Clark proposed that the sensory findings in myelopathy usually include the loss of pain and temperature, proprioception, and vibrations below the level of the lesion, with the relative sparing of touch (26). These factors are clearly influenced by the multiplicity of levels and degrees of compression. The most common presentation is spastic weakness of the hands and forearms before involvement of the proximal upper extremity muscles and hand numbness with paresthesias, which may be painful. Wasting of hand musculature is a late finding and is often symmetric because of the central nature of osteophytic compression in the canal. Likely related to the compressive effect on lower motor neurons within the cord, mid-cervical spondylotic myelopathy may present with unilateral or bilateral hand weakness mimicking a C8-T1 radiculopathy (94). It is common for some patients to present with leg weakness, emphasizing the effect of long tract compression on lower extremity motor function. Typically, the proximal musculature is affected early, making it difficult for the patient to get up out of a chair, get out of a car, or climb stairs.

Reflexes are generally hyperreflexic below the level of compression and hyporeflexic at the level of the anatomic lesion because of impaired lower motor neuron function in the anterior horn. Pathologic reflexes, such as the presence of the Babinski reflex in the lower extremities and Hoffmann reflex in the upper extremities, characterize upper motor neuron involvement in the cervical spine. Furthermore, clonus may be present in the lower extremities. Lhermitte sign may be present when the patient flexes and extends the neck, producing a feeling of electrical shock. Lunsford and colleagues reported that although a significant number of patients manifest hyperreflexia (87%), only about 50% have the Babinski reflex and about 20% have the Hoffmann reflex (72). To further complicate the evaluation, it should be remembered that at least 10% to 20% of patients with cervical spondylosis have some degree of symptomatic lumbar stenosis as well, blunting the increased tone and hyperreflexia of the lower extremities produced by the upper spinal compression and adding radicular leg pain to the history (100).

Bladder and bowel symptoms tend to occur infrequently and late in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Bladder dysfunction was demonstrated in 15% and bowel dysfunction in 18% of the patients in a clinical series of 269 patients with myelopathy (55). In a separate clinical study, Epstein and colleagues found that 20% of patients exhibited bladder dysfunction with various degrees of urinary retention (39). The most common urinary symptoms in early spondylotic myelopathy are urinary urgency and frequency, particularly in women. Impotence in males may occur with more chronic and severe cord compression but may have other causes in the older population.

Myelopathy hand, introduced by Ono and colleagues in 1987, is a loss of power of adduction and extension of the two ulnar fingers and an inability to rapidly grab and release these fingers (87). “Burning hand syndrome” from chronic vascular injury to the medial sensory tracts tends to be bilateral and symmetric, provoked by light touch that produces sustained burning. This is generally an indication of a late permanent hyperpathic sensory derangement that may respond little or not at all to surgical decompression.

Gait abnormalities are noticeable in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Gorter noted that cervical myelopathy usually presents initially as subtle gait disturbances with gradual deterioration (48). He stated that spasticity and paretic dysfunction occur first and are followed by numbness and a loss of fine motor movements in the upper extremities. A myelopathic gait with a hesitant, jerking motion may appear. In addition to the gait abnormalities, some patients present with lower extremity complaints that are more of a lower motor neuron involvement. This is not surprising because it is estimated that 5% of patients with cervical stenosis have concomitant lumbar stenosis (40). Treatment should first be directed toward the cervical component, which often improves or alleviates the lumbar component.

Prognosis and complications

Though it has been several decades since the first clinical history of myelopathy was published, no definable natural history is available. Lees and Turner concluded clinical exacerbation added to neurologic deficits in patients with more than 10 years of myelopathy but emphasized that long periods of a neurologic stabilization occur between episodes of deterioration (68). Nurick supported this concept and concluded that the amount of disability in cervical myelopathy was established early in the disease process and generally did not progress significantly afterwards (86). Epstein's clinical review of 1355 patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy determined in a conservative treatment evaluation that 36% showed improvement, whereas 64% showed no improvement (38). In the group that did not improve, 26% deteriorated neurologically with the remainders remaining stable. Sixty-seven percent of Symon and Lavender's patients displayed a linear relentless progression of neurologic deterioration rather than stabilization (103). A study classified patients who were “pre-symptomatic” with cervical spinal stenosis, followed them for a year, and determined that 19% had symptomatic progression; in 90% of these, an electrophysiologic data-based model was predictive (14).

Typically, patients with myelopathy have symptoms and signs for several years before seeking medical attention. Although the progression is usually slow, the course often involves a progressive decline if the disease is left untreated. A small percentage of patients exhibit a more rapid onset of progression of symptoms and signs.

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy is an intermittently progressive disease process without significant chance of reversal when no treatment is administered. Conservative therapy rarely solves the myelopathy. Once patients have presented with the signs and symptoms of cervical spondylotic myelopathy, most have some degree of permanent disability. Little chance of symptom resolution is possible with conservative treatment; therefore, patients with moderate or severe myelopathy are candidates for surgery. The two most important factors for successful outcome in patients treated for cervical spondylotic myelopathy are (1) the patient's age and (2) the duration of symptoms. Young patients tend to do better than elderly patients. With respect to duration of disease, patients whose disease has been present for fewer than 6 months have a more favorable outcome than patients whose symptoms have been present for 1 year.

Chiles and colleagues examined a group of 76 individuals after anterior decompressive surgery. Interestingly, improvement occurred in the lower extremities in 47% of patients compared to a 75% improvement in the upper extremities. Approximately 2% per year developed symptomatic restenosis at adjacent levels to the original decompression (25). A prospective multicenter study with independent clinical review was performed by Sampath and colleagues to analyze the outcome of patients treated for cervical myelopathy. The study, sponsored by the Cervical Spine Research Society, indicated that surgically treated patients had a significant improvement in functional status and overall pain, with improvement also observed in neurologic symptoms (95). Several radiological studies have shown that favorable prognosis following decompressive surgery of any type may be predicted by the severity of preoperative spasticity, weakness, and atrophy coupled with critical MRI spinal cord findings; patients with normal cord appearance or presence of intramedullary high-signal change on T2WI fare better than those patients with hypointense (low signal) change on T1WI, which may indicate permanent injury (03; 73).

Clinical vignette

A 56-year-old right-handed man presented with 3-year history of progressively severe radiating neck, right shoulder, and arm pain with intermittent paresthesias in both hands, right worse than left. Over the preceding 4 months, he had noticed impairment in fine motor coordination in his hands, with deterioration in his signature, difficulty with buttoning his shirt, and discriminating coins in his pocket. He also complained of fatigue and feeling of heaviness in his legs but without leg pain. He denied bladder or sexual difficulties. Physical exam revealed some loss of mechanical range of neck motion, particularly in rotation and in extension; Spurling maneuver provoked radiation of pain down the right arm from the shoulder with paresthesias in the entire right hand. Lhermitte sign was not elicited. Hoffman sign was present bilaterally. Mild weakness was noted in right biceps in forearm supination, right triceps, and finger extensors; grips were slightly weak, but abduction and adduction of both hands were moderately weak, right worse than left, with noticeable atrophy in right first dorsal interossei. Reflexes were diminished bilaterally in the upper extremities but brisk in the lower extremities. Gait appeared normal but with some difficulty with tight-roping. Lateral C-spine x-ray revealed a normally aligned but straightened spine with loss of normal lordotic curve, moderately severe spondylotic changes at the C5-6 disc space, narrowing with anterior and posterior spurring, and a chronically collapsed C6-7 disc space with more severe posterior spurring compromising the spinal canal.

Spondylosis (preoperative lateral C-spine x-ray)

Preoperative lateral C-spine x-ray of a 56-year-old man with C5-6, C6-7 spondylosis presenting with myeloradiculopathy. The spine is normally aligned but straightened, with loss of normal lordotic curve. There are moderately sever...
Spondylosis (preoperative right parasagittal C-MRI)

This preoperative right parasagittal C-MRI of a 56-year-old man with C5-6, C6-7 spondylosis demonstrates spinal cord displacement and compression by bony spurring at the level of the disc spaces. (Contributed by Dr. Saul Schwarz.)
Spondylosis (preoperative axial C-MRI) (1)

This preoperative axial C-MRI of 56-year-old man with spondylosis demonstrates C5-6 right-sided anterior spinal cord compression. (Contributed by Dr. Saul Schwarz.)
Spondylosis (preoperative axial C-MRI) (2)

This preoperative axial C-MRI of a 56-year-old man with spondylosis demonstrates C6-7 severe right greater than left central spinal cord compression and foraminal narrowing. (Contributed by Dr. Saul Schwarz.)
Spondylosis (postoperative lateral C-spine x-ray)

One-month postoperative lateral C-spine x-ray of a 56-year-old man, status-post C5-6, C6-7 anterior microdiscectomy, allograft fusion, plate fixation for myeloradiculopathy. (Contributed by Dr. Saul Schwarz.)
Microdiscectomy, allograft fusion, and plate fixation for spondylosis (1)

Exposure of anterior cervical microdiscectomy, allograft fusion, and plate fixation for spondylosis. After disc, cartilage, posterior longitudinal ligament, and spur removal, the ventral dural covering the spinal cord at C5-6 is v...
Microdiscectomy, allograft fusion, and plate fixation for spondylosis (2)

Exposure of anterior cervical microdiscectomy, allograft fusion, and plate fixation after placing bone grafts at C5-6, C6-7. (Left) rostral field; (right) caudal field; (superior) left paracervical retractor blade at longus colli ...
Microdiscectomy, allograft fusion, and plate fixation for spondylosis (3)

Exposure of anterior cervical microdiscectomy, allograft fusion, and plate fixation after placing titanium plate over fusion construct, with pairs of titanium screws in C5, C6, and C7 vertebral bodies. (Contributed by Dr. Saul Sch...

Following surgery, he had almost immediate relief of pain and paresthesias in the right arm and both hands, with slowly improving strength in the proximal upper extremities. However, he had persistent weakness in hand intrinsics and lower extremity hyperreflexia at 1 year following surgery.

Biological basis

Etiology and pathogenesis

Although the cause of cervical spondylotic myelopathy has not been definitively pinpointed, four main theories for the development of this disease are available including: (1) a vascular hypothesis, (2) a compression hypothesis, (3) a hybrid of the first two (81), and (4) a dentate ligament theory (69). The cervical spinal cord receives its blood supply from the anterior spinal artery, paired posterior spinal arteries, and radicular arteries. Anastomoses are usually insufficient and occlusion of one radicular artery places the cord at risk for infarction. Within the ventral median fissure, the anterior spinal artery divides into short or proximal branches that supply the anterior funiculus and the central gray matter. The anterior spinal artery also is responsible for providing perfusion via long perforating branches that terminate in the lateral funiculus. The lateral cortical spinal tracts are supplied primarily by the long perforating branches with the medial portion of these tracts receiving additional supply from posterior spinal arteries and short perforating branches. The descending fibers of the cortical spinal tracts are arranged somatotopically. The fibers entering the upper extremities reside more medially, and the fibers responsible for innervating the lower extremity myelotomes are located more laterally.

After examining cross-sections of cadaveric spinal segments, Breig and colleagues noted that anterior posterior compression and compensatory lateral widening of the spinal cord compromise the longer perforating vessels (20). Therefore, ischemia secondary to compression may affect the lateral columns more than the anterior columns, explaining why the lower extremities are affected earlier and more severely than the upper extremities in cervical spondylotic myelopathy (81). Also supporting merit to the hybrid theory, Hoff and colleagues revealed a decrease in vessel filling within the gray and anterior lateral white matter in canines that had undergone compression followed by ischemia (52). In the last hypothesis, Levine showed that in a mechanical model of cervical spinal stenosis, tension transmitted from stretched dentate ligaments to the cord predicted patterns of injury typically seen clinically (69). Perfusion MRI scans confirm the final pathway of compression leads to spinal cord ischemia and hypoxia, resulting in permanent damage or “myelomalacia” (37).

Biomechanically, the intrinsic component of the human spine is the functional spinal segment. A functional spinal segment consists of the vertebral body with its intervertebral disc both superiorly and inferiorly. A component of this functional spinal segment is the 3-joint complex consisting of the intervertebral disc, the superior facet, and the inferior facet (41). As the human disc ages, it loses elasticity, disc space height, and the ability to distribute forces. These changes alter the force vectors of the posterior elements. Anular bulges increase mobility, and settling of the adjacent vertebral bodies results in buckling of the ligamentum flavum. Osteophytic spur formation occurs as an attempt to offset this increased dynamic mobility. Osteophyte formation provides stabilization between both adjacent vertebral bodies and increases the weight-bearing surface of the vertebral body endplates (19). Spurs that form anteriorly or anterolaterally rarely produce neurologic complications; however, if the spur evolves posteriorly or posterolaterally the neural foramen, the spinal canal, or both become compromised. This, coupled with facet hypertrophy, plays a dynamic role in narrowing the overall surface area of the cervical spinal canal.

The largest area of the cervical spinal canal is C1. From C2 distally, the cervical spinal canal funnels down, markedly decreasing the diameter for the cord. The normal cervical spinal canal from C3 to C7 is 17 mm to 18 mm in its sagittal diameter. Diameters of fewer than 12 mm have been found to be critical in the development of cervical myelopathy. Certain predisposing factors (ie, congenital spinal stenosis, ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, spondyloarthropathies, or trauma) also place some patients at a higher risk of developing symptoms. Two separate studies, Adams and Logue and Ono and colleagues, found a decrease in anterior posterior or sagittal components of the spinal canal in patients who develop cervical spondylotic myelopathy (01; 88). Mihara and colleagues performed a radiologic analysis of 18 elderly patients with C3-C4 spondylotic myelopathy in an attempt to elucidate the pathogenesis and concluded that two important features predispose the patients to the disorder of the cervical spine viz (1) greater C3-C4 angulation associated with age-related postural change and (2) hypermobility at the C3-C4 segment compensating for decreased mobility at the lower segments (77). A group studying patients with congenital cervical spinal stenosis had additional tendency toward disc degeneration as well as hypermobility of certain spinal segments, adding to the usual aging changes and leading to an earlier progressive myelopathy (80).

Some patients suffer from dynamic myelopathy. This syndrome consists of patients having few symptoms when maintained in the normal or flexed position, but marked exacerbation when the neck is extended, caused by buckling of the ligamentum flavum and posterior longitudinal ligament combined with osteophytic narrowing in hyperextension. One of the most dire events arising from spondylotic changes in the cervical spine in the elderly is seen in the cervical hyperextension fall; because of the underlying gait instability from proprioceptive loss, with or without spasticity, the patient lurches or stumbles forward, landing on the chest and chin with the head thrown back, acutely worsening the impact of the calcified disc and ligament against the cord. This often results in permanent quadriplegia, and, if the patient survives the fall, may be complicated by loss of cervical cord sympathetics as well, leading to severe bradycardia and hypotension; fluid resuscitation in this group of elderly patients with concomitant cardiac disease will lead to further deterioration from congestive heart failure, arrhythmias, and death.

Differential diagnosis

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy usually affects patients over 50 years of age. Although the disorder is the most common cause of cervical cord dysfunction in the elderly, radiographic confirmation is warranted to confirm that an observed myelopathy is caused by cervical degeneration and not by another pathologic process. Cervical spine instability with canal compromise due to chronic subluxations is not uncommonly seen in the elderly patient and should be easily distinguished radiographically and by MRI. Similarly, C1-2 instability from rheumatoid pannus and chronic cervicomedullary compression may have a similar presentation. Other afflictions whose presentation may mimic cervical spondylotic myelopathy include disseminated sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, AIDS myelopathy, lupus myelopathy, A-beta-lipoproteinemia, B12 deficiency, tumors, syringomyelia, Chiari malformation, primary lateral sclerosis, and vertebrobasilar ischemia. Although cervical spondylotic myelopathy can frequently present as an isolated, painless, spastic lower paraparesis, if the imaging does not support a cervical compressive cause, the diagnostic work-up should aim higher. Chronic subdural hematoma and sagittal meningioma may produce this syndrome as well.

An important diagnosis to consider in the differential is amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in which patients present with a combination of upper and lower motor neuron disease as well. It has been estimated that the diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is initially missed in nearly 40% of cases or that the signs and symptoms are attributed to another cause (96). However, the key differentiating factor is the region of lower motor neuron involvement--patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy should only have cervical nerve root lower motor neuron symptoms and signs; patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis can have other lower motor neurons afflicted as well. To complicate matters, one study found nearly 48% of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis have some degree of cervical spondylosis, with 8% undergoing surgery for progressive symptoms (113). Electromyographic findings, such as thoracic paraspinal muscle denervation preferentially in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis versus cervical spondylotic myelopathy, have been described as possible aids in differentiating diagnosis (62). Tongue atrophy and EMG evidence of tongue muscular denervation favors the diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. In addition, some cases of cervical myelopathy and concomitant canal stenosis with Chiari malformation have been reported in patients with fibromyalgia (51).

It may be difficult or impossible to distinguish between the relative contributions of cervical spondylosis and multiple sclerosis in producing myeloradiculopathy in the patient afflicted with both disorders. One series of 15 patients showed clear benefit of surgical decompression in reducing pain and paresthesias in the majority of cases, with many patients showing significant improvement in upper and lower extremity motor function; the surgeries were well tolerated (07).

Diagnostic workup

Most middle-aged and elderly individuals suffering from spinal cord afflictions have some degree of degenerative changes of the cervical spine on imaging studies; therefore, a careful history and meticulous examination are essential for the accurate correlation of abnormalities observed with imaging and the patient's clinical picture. Plain radiographs including anterior, posterior, lateral, and oblique views should be obtained for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Flexion and extension radiographs are important for further evaluation of a patient with suspected cervical instability. Plain radiographs provide important information with respect to mass lesions, infection, trauma, and congenital abnormalities. The size of the spinal canal can be assessed, and anatomical landmarks can be identified that may be helpful for intraoperative localization.

However, plain radiographs do not provide an adequate assessment of soft tissue anatomy, the overall spinal column dimensions, or the spinal cord architecture. Prior to the advent of cervical MRI (C-MRI) in the mid-1980s, the gold standard for imaging cervical spondylotic myelopathy is CT following myelographic contrast into the intrathecal sac. As a result of the increase in the differential provided by the intrathecal material, better definition of a herniated disc or spondylotic ridge is provided when compared to CT or plain radiographs alone. In addition, intrathecal contrast provides an accurate assessment of the effect of the spondylotic ridge on the spinal cord itself. CT myelography also provides evaluation of the cross-sectional area of the cord and subarachnoid space, which may be of prognostic value. In a clinical review, Badami and colleagues found that patients with a cord to subarachnoid ratio of greater than 50% had good functional recovery after surgical decompression compared to those with less than 50% in whom no functional recovery was noted (09). The disadvantage of CT is that it exposes the patient to a formidable amount of radiation and requires a lumbar or cervical spinal tap, with the potential for the potential common complication (10% incidence) of postmyelographic headache and much rarer complication of nerve or spinal cord injury.

MRI allows the examination of the cervical spine for disc and spondylotic disease without exposing the patient to ionizing radiation or invasive myelography.

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MRI)

(A) axial and (B) sagittal, T2-weighted MRIs. (A) The spinal canal is markedly narrowed on the right by a large osteophyte. (B) Cord compression and myelomalacia are evident at C4-5, C5-6, C6-7. (Contributed by Dr. Sherman Stein.)

It provides excellent detail of the spinal cord, nerve roots, subarachnoid space, and soft tissue abnormalities (ie, soft disc herniation) and is preferred in assessing the presence of an intramedullary process and intradural or extradural neoplastic processes. A direct correlation has been demonstrated between degree of cord flattening on MRI scan and the delay in corticospinal motor conduction times as measured intraoperatively by transcranial magnetic stimulation (93). MRI may also provide prognostic value in patients undergoing operative decompression. In a study of more than 600 patients, 56% of patients whose MRI demonstrated increased signal intensity within the spinal cord on T2-weighted images, indicating spinal cord damage, had no improvement following decompression compared with 15% of patients with no abnormal signal (105). Matsumoto and colleagues tried to analyze the significance of increased signal intensity on T2-weighted MRI scans of the spine in the patients with cervical myelopathy to predict the outcome of conservative treatment. They concluded that increased signal intensity was not related to a poor outcome or the severity of the myelopathy (74). This is in contradistinction to a study by Papadopoulos and colleagues, who found that a 2-segment T2-hyperintense region was less likely to show improved outcome following decompression compared to a 1-segment hyperintensity or none present (90). MRI evidence of spinal cord swelling at or adjacent to the point of compression is often seen in younger patients and indicates a more rapid progression of spinal cord compromise, alerting to a more urgent need for decompression (104). Advances in MRI technology, such as diffusion tensor imaging, may find earlier changes of spondylotic myelopathy than with standard MRI imaging, especially when trauma from motion is suspected in cases showing significant bony canal stenosis without definite cord compression (11). The presence of gadolinium enhancement in the spinal cord behind the compressive anterior spur, often extending above and below the point of compression for one or more segments, can be confusing to the clinician who is concerned that the patient may have a separate process affecting the cord, such as transverse myelitis or intramedullary tumor. A Mayo Clinic study retrospectively studied 56 patients who underwent surgery for spondylosis over a 16-year period who presented with cord enhancement on MRI and noted that despite overall improved outcome the enhancement usually persisted for months or years after decompression. The critical point is that as many as 70% of patients were initially diagnosed with inflammatory or neoplastic intramedullary cord disease, rather than attributing the enhancement to compressive spondylosis, and had a delay in surgical treatment for an average of 11 months; biopsy of the spinal cord in six instances failed to yield a diagnosis other than compressive myelopathy (44).

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) MRI may come to replace or supplement conventional MRI in the evaluation of early cervical spondylotic myelopathy because of greater sensitivity for white matter edema or injury (82; 108; 02; 70).

Flexion-extension MRI is also gaining favor with the global neurosurgical community, as studies have shown an increased sensitivity for detecting cord compression using dynamic imaging, as well as a change in surgical approach with the additional dynamic information compared with use of static neutral MRI alone (06).

One option to better define the bony anatomy for measuring canal size, evaluate the quality of previous fusion areas, and determine the size of pedicles and location of the vertebral artery foramina for surgical planning is a thin-section cervical CT (C-CT). This study avoids the risks and patient discomfort of a myelogram and, coupled with C-MRI, will usually suffice for preoperative evaluation. C-CT also has the advantage of distinguishing ossified posterior longitudinal ligament from the simple calcifications of cervical spondylosis and clarifying the extent of ossified posterior longitudinal ligament for purposes of surgical planning.

One study looking perioperatively at patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy with positron emission tomography showed characteristic changes in the cervical cord prior to surgery, which may help to indicate which patients will benefit from surgical decompression (36).

Management

Ideally, cervical spondylotic myelopathy is a surgically treated entity, but certain patients present an unacceptable risk, frequently pulmonary or cardiac, for general anesthesia and surgical intervention. Attention is then directed at medical management of chronic arthritic and neuropathic pain, spasticity, and associated bladder dysfunction as indicated (75). These techniques are frequently effective in management of the postoperative patient with residual symptoms.

Advances in spinal imaging and accumulation of clinical experience have provided some clues as to indications and timing of surgery for cervical myelopathy. Yonenobu suggested the duration of myelopathy prior to surgery and the transverse area of the spinal cord at the maximum compression level as the most significant factors influencing the decision to perform surgery (114). When surgery is properly carried out, long-term results are expected to be good and stable. Surgery to relieve the compression may reduce the pain and disability, though it is associated with a small but definite risk. The short-term effects of surgery, in terms of pain, weakness, or sensory loss, have been proven to be superior (45). Surgery for asymptomatic elderly individuals with imaging evidence of cord compression, performed as a preventive measure, is controversial. One study in the Czech Republic showed a low incidence of spinal cord injury from minor trauma in patients identified with asymptomatic spondylotic canal compromise, so recommended management has been simple risk avoidance in this group (15).

An Italian group has used advanced MRI imaging techniques to determine the role of neuronal plasticity in functional recovery after cervical cord decompression in patients with compressive myelopathy. Using diffusion MRI and functional MRI, they found cortical and subcortical areas undergoing neuronal reorganization that was consistent with findings also seen during recovery after spinal cord injury (17). Analysis of the literature regarding spondylotic myelopathy does not demonstrate conclusively the superiority of either the anterior or the posterior approach (23); however, no true comparative prospective trial has ever been established. Instead, successful surgery depends on proper patient selection and selection of the approach that provides optimal decompression of the spinal cord. As a general rule, the anterior approach is appropriate for patients whose pathological compression occurs anterior to the spinal cord at three or fewer vertebral segments. For most patients with cervical disc disease or spondylosis, the compression lesion lies anterior to the spinal cord. For this reason, it is felt that the anterior approach provides more thorough and complete decompression. Also, for patients whose preoperative lateral cervical spine reveals a kyphotic deformity, the anterior approach is mandated for cervical decompression because a posterior approach could exacerbate the kyphosis, worsening the myelopathy.

Failed laminectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Sagittal, T2-weighted MRI in patient with continued myelopathy following bilateral laminectomies of C3 to C6. There is kyphosis, cord compression and myelomalacia at C6-7. (Contributed by Dr. Anil Nanda.)

The two most common anterior approaches for discectomy are (1) the Cloward technique and (2) the Smith-Robinson technique. The Smith-Robinson technique replaces the removed intervertebral disc and osteophytic bar with a tricortical horseshoe-shaped graft. Initially this was provided by harvesting a tricortical wedge from the patient’s iliac crest. Over the past two decades, this technique has been replaced by bone from other sources, including allograft iliac crest and machined corticocancellous allograft spacers that can achieve comparable fusion rates as autograft, particularly with the availability of fusion “enhancers” such as demineralized allograft bone matrix. The introduction of anterior cervical plating systems has also improved postoperative alignment and fusion by supporting the fusion construct with a more even distribution of forces on the grafts and the patient’s own bone. In the Cloward technique, the superior and inferior end plates as well as the intervertebral discs are removed in a circular fashion, and the removed segments are replaced with a round dowel graft. In order to achieve adequate decompression, the posterior osteophytic bar must be resected regardless of technique performed. Removal of the degenerated posterior longitudinal ligament in each case is recommended, as it is typically thickened and calcified and directly impacts the ventral dura in the majority of cases (10).

Bone grafting is an adjuvant in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy via the anterior approach. Though previous studies (49) have shown that no difference exists in single level fusion versus no fusion, others (97) have advocated that bone grafting alleviates immediate postoperative pain and helps prevent further kyphosis that may render the spinal cord more compressed, worsening the myelopathy. Regardless of the technique used, patients should have some type of bone grafting procedure performed to eliminate kyphosis at the level of fusion. Preferred options for interbody fusion materials include iliac crest or fibular strut autograft, cadaver allograft, and titanium or PEEK (polyetheretherketone) cage packed with demineralized bone matrix (DBM) or recombinant bone morphogenic protein (BMP). PEEK cages have the advantage of modulus of elasticity similar to bone, allow minimal subsidence during the months of ongoing fusion, and, thus, maintain the restored foraminal and disc space height and lordosis achieved at surgery (61; 34).

Dural decompression in cervical spondylotic myelopathy (1)

Intraoperative exposure of patient with C4-5, C5-6 spondylotic myelopathy, demonstrating the decompressed ventral dura covering the spinal cord at the C4-5 space. (Contributed by Dr. Saul Schwarz; courtesy of Synthes Corporation, ...
Dural decompression in cervical spondylotic myelopathy (2)

Preparation of the PEEK-titanium cages by inserting synthetic calcium triphosphate bone matrix soaked in the patient's own blood and bone dust slurry, collected from disc space drilling. (Contributed by Dr. Saul Schwarz; courtesy ...
Dural decompression in cervical spondylotic myelopathy (3)

PEEK-titanium cages are placed under distraction into the disc spaces; angled titanium screws lock the cages into the distracted, aligned disc spaces to set up fusion. (Contributed by Dr. Saul Schwarz; courtesy of Synthes Corporat...

Review of the literature supports the use of stacked anterior interbody fusion cages over three and four levels as a satisfactory method for cord decompression, fusion with restoration of cervical lordosis, and minimal associated dysphagia and dysphonia (04; 05). Advisories against use of BMP in anterior cervical fusion have been issued based on a significant incidence of postoperative soft tissue swelling, dysphagia, and even fatal airway obstruction; this complication is likely dose-dependent, and further studies are needed to determine safety of BMP in this context (109; 107). The advantage of maintaining or restoring motion after anterior decompression of the cord by placement of prosthetic cervical disc has not been established in the generally older spondylotic population; the real or theoretical risk of accelerated adjacent segment disc deterioration following fusion is more a concern for the younger, more active patient with soft disc rupture (98). A large metaanalysis of over 60,000 patients (20 years of age or greater) undergoing anterior cervical fusion and followed for 11 years found an average of 6.57% symptomatic adjacent segment disease requiring additional level fusion surgery, with the highest group requiring additional surgery at 8.12% among those 30 to 39 years of age with those undergoing initial multilevel surgery (99).

Regarding the relative benefits of fusion versus arthroplasty, a 5-year prospective randomized trial comparing 99 patients randomized to either single-level disc arthroplasty or anterior cervical interbody plated fusion found a higher incidence (seven patients) needing additional surgery for adjacent segment disease in the fusion group as compared with the disc arthroplasty group (one patient) (54). Additional studies comparing single or multilevel arthroplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy with anterior decompression (discectomy or corpectomy) fusion surgery have shown equal safety and satisfactory improvement in neurologic deficits and symptoms (117; 30; 50). Although there is a risk of nonunion with any fusion surgery, one study suggested that the time for achieving fusion may be quite protracted in this elderly group, following nine nonunion patients of 31 total who had failed to achieve radiographic fusion at 2 years, with five of those going on to fuse at between 3 and 6 years postoperatively; they found no pain scale correlation between those with fusion and those with nonunion, and the majority all had significant axial pain resolution over the time observed (65). A Taiwan group published an unusual series of 4-level cervical disc arthroplasty for multilevel cervical spondylosis, justifying this approach on the fact that some degree of pseudoarthrosis on one or more levels is likely when attempting interbody fusion; 20 patients were studied with a 3-year follow-up, and they found preserved or improved cervical mobility with minimal complications (24).

Multiple anterior discectomies with resection of associated osteophyte in spondylotic myelopathy may not allow adequate visualization and resection of the compressive complex; significant spurring may be left against the cord behind the vertebral bodies above and below one or more disc spaces. For this reason, anterior medial corpectomy with strut grafting, or interbody cylinders of titanium, carbon fiber, or PEEK packed with autologous, synthetic, or allograft bone may be recommended for patients whose compression spans multiple herniated disc segments. This approach allows complete removal of the anterior cord impingement, creates a stable spine, and may avoid the pseudarthrosis that can occur with multiple level grafts in the elderly, osteoporotic patient.

Fessler and colleagues performed multilevel corpectomy and fusion with or without instrumentation in 93 patients (43). Symptomatic improvement was seen in 92% of patients, and there was a complication rate of 18% (43). Whether performed as one or more anterior discectomies or as a corpectomy, the specific risks of the anterior approach include spinal cord injury as well as failure to adequately decompress the spinal cord, nerve root injury and dural tear with spinal fluid leak, injury to soft tissues dissected (esophagus, carotid sheath structures), injury to the recurrent laryngeal nerve and vocal cord paralysis, sympathetic chain injury (Horner syndrome), hematoma formation with compromise of airway or spinal cord, infection, and failure to achieve fusion. More studies are coming out advocating the use of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in place of allograft bone, demonstrating comparable rates of fusion in elderly patients while avoiding reliance on bone bank materials (60). Postoperative anterior wound hematoma or seroma was found to be the most common surgical complication requiring early (within 30 days) readmission in over 45,000 Medicare patients, with an incidence of 1% to 1.4% (92). One disadvantage of the corpectomy approach is the straightening of the spine that results in replacing two or more spinal segments with a single strut graft; one evenly divided study of 100 patients showed improved preservation of cervical lordosis with a multilevel interbody fusion technique versus “hybrid” technique of corpectomies with strut construct (22).

Thorough decompression of the spinal cord can be achieved through the individual space; corpectomy is not required, and total disc replacement (disc arthroplasty) has been advocated and used effectively at one or more levels to maintain alignment and preserve mobility, with reports of equal outcome to anterior discectomy with fusion procedures (91; 33; 21).

Vertebral body sliding osteotomy is a variation of an anterior surgical decompression technique in which cuts are made through the lateral aspect of each of the vertebral bodies at the level of cord compression by osteophytic disc or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), and the middle core of each vertebral body is lifted anteriorly—away from the anterior spinal cord—and secured with an anterior plating system (67; 66). In addition, adjacent segments above and below the levels of compression also undergo discectomy with implant and plated fusion so that lordosis can be restored. The technique reportedly has a lower rate of dural tear with improved fusion rates and better sagittal alignment than with corpectomy and strut graft fusion.

Posterior techniques are performed in patients whose pathologic compression encompasses more than four vertebral body segments, and for those patients in which the posterior canal compromise by thickened ligamentum flavum, overgrown facet joints, or congenitally short pedicles is as great as or greater than the anterior compression elements. The two techniques used for posterior decompression include cervical laminectomy with or without lateral mass plating or laminoplasty. Though both techniques allow for adequate posterior decompression, laminoplasty was developed to help maintain posterior stability and prevent postoperative laminectomy kyphosis, which can worsen cervical myelopathy. The goal of operative intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy is to provide adequate decompression; thus, the adequate width of the laminectomy or laminoplasty must be to either side of the cervical spinal cord dura. This allows complete and thorough decompression without injuring the facet joints and potentially provoking or worsening any preexisting instability. The incidence of postlaminectomy kyphosis—“swan neck deformity”—done without fusion has been reported at 21% (102) but may be less in those patients who present with adequate cervical lordosis before surgery. A Swedish group followed 60 patients treated with posterior laminectomy alone for 8 years and noted no significant change in degree of lordosis over time (71). Several groups have shown no long-term benefit to laminoplasty over simple laminectomy for patients presenting without loss of lordosis or gross instability (110). Multilevel laminoplasty tended to generate more chronic axial pain without significant reduction in long-term straightening or kyphosis (85). A metaanalysis from the Netherlands showed no significant benefit of laminoplasty over laminectomy with or without fusion, and a higher complication rate for laminoplasty (12). Surgeons in South Korea reached the same conclusion by a seven-study metaanalysis of nearly 600 patients evenly distributed between the two procedures (64). Delayed interlaminar fusion with increased kyphosis has been reported after laminoplasty with longer postoperative follow-up (59). Lateral mass plating has virtually eliminated the need for cervical laminoplasty in the adult spine, as it achieves a high rate of fusion without risk of recurrent canal compromise (53; 29). Another successful surgical technique for posterior decompression fusion using bilateral facet cages has been reported (18). One group reported 81% improvement in myelopathy over 17 months of postoperative recovery in 54 consecutive patients undergoing laminectomy and instrumented fusion, with the remainder of patients halting progression of their symptoms (47). Another group measured significant posterior drift of the spinal cord away from anterior spurs following successful laminectomy with instrumented fusion, further recommending this treatment approach (106). One benefit cited for the posterior decompression, instrumented fusion approach is postoperative resorption of anterior compressive spurring, as measured by MRI scanning (08). Specific risks of the posterior approach for spinal cord decompression include spinal cord injury or failure to adequately decompress the spinal cord, dural tear with spinal fluid leak, instability and late kyphosis, infection, hemorrhage, and hematoma formation, and combined with posterolateral fusion, nerve root and vertebral artery injury, and failure to achieve fusion. A Chicago group published favorable preliminary data on patients undergoing minimally invasive endoscopic decompression without fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy, with good outcomes and reduced morbidity compared to the more extensive muscle dissection and hardware placement required for the open surgical techniques (32). In general, according to extensive meta-analysis of the literature, if anterior decompression with fusion can be tolerated by the patient and still achieve satisfactory spinal cord decompression, it is felt to be better than the posterior approach, with less operative and long-term morbidity (78).

In summary, assuming a well-chosen approach and method for decompression, with or without fusion, surgery is strongly recommended as the preferred treatment, as supported by a prospective international study of 479 patients (42). Most comparative studies favor surgery tailored to the specific anatomy of compression and the tolerances of the individual patient rather than to an anterior or posterior approach for all (116; 46).

Media

References

01: Adams CB, Logue V. Studies in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. II. The movement and contour of the spine in relation to the neural complications of cervical spondylosis. Brain 1971;94:568-86. PMID 5111718
02: Akshiitha R, Gopinath G, Divya M, Paarthipan N. The role of diffusion tensor tractography in assessment of spondylotic myelopathy. Cureus 2022;14(6):e25778. PMID 35706439
03: Alafifi T, Kern R, Fehlings M. Clinical and MRI predictors of outcome after surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neuroimaging 2007;17(4):315-22. PMID 17894620
04: Albanese V, Certo F, Visocchi M, Barbagallo GM. Multilevel ACDF with zero-profile devices: analysis of safety and feasibility, with a focus on sagittal alignment and its impact on clinical outcome. A single institution experience and review of the literature. World Neurosurg 2017;106:724-35. PMID 28625909
05: Alhashash M, Allouch H, Boehm H, Shousha M. Results of four-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using stand-alone interbody titanium cages. Asian Spine J 2022;16(1):82-91. PMID 33687861
06: Alkosha HMA, El Adalany MA, Elsobky H, Zidan AS, Sabry A, Awad BI. Flexion/extension cervical magnetic resonance imaging: a potentially useful tool for decision-making in patients with symptomatic degenerative cervical spine world. Neurosurg 2022;164:e1078-86. PMID 35636662
07: Arnold PM, Warren RK, Anderson KK, Vaccaro AR. Surgical treatment of patients with cervical myeloradiculopathy and coexistent multiple sclerosis: report of 15 patients with long-term follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2011;24(3):177-82. PMID 20634728
08: Ashana AO, Cohen JR, Evans B, Holly LT. Regression of anterior disc-osteophyte complex following cervical laminectomy and fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Spine Surg 2017;30(5):E609-14. PMID 28525486
09: Badami JP, Norman D, Barbaro NM, et al. Metrizamide CT myelography in cervical myelopathy and radiculopathy: correlation with conventional myelography and surgical findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1985;144:675-80. PMID 2983519
10: Bai CR, Wang BQ, Li KH, Guo A, Tang H. Benefit of degenerative posterior longitudinal ligament removal during anterior decompression in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Orthopedics 2015;38(1):e54-61. PMID 25611421
11: Banaszek A, Bladowska J, Szewczyk P, Podgorski P, Sąsiadek M. Usefulness of diffusion tensor MR imaging in the assessment of intramedullary changes of the cervical spinal cord in different stages of degenerative spine disease. Eur Spine J 2014;23(7):1523-30. PMID 24816677
12: Bartels RH, van Tulder MW, Moojen WA, Arts MP, Peul WC. Laminoplasty and laminectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 2015;24 Suppl 2:160-7. PMID 23575659
13: Batzdorf U. Complex cervical myelopathies. In: Frymoyer J, editor. The Adult Spine; Principles and Practice. New York: Raven Press, 1991:1207-18.
14: Bednarik J, Kadanka Z, Dusek L, et al. Presymptomatic spondylotic cervical cord compression. Spine 2004;29(20):2260-9. PMID 15480138
15: Bednarik J, Sládková D, Kadanka Z, et al. Are subjects with spondylotic cervical cord encroachment at increased risk of cervical spinal cord injury after minor trauma. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2011;82(7):779-81. PMID 20587498
16: Benzel EC. Biomechanics of Spine Stabilization. Rolling Meadows: American Association of Neurological Surgeons Publications, 2001.
17: Bonosi L, Musso S, Cusimano LM, et al. The role of neuronal plasticity in cervical spondylotic myelopathy surgery: functional assessment and prognostic implication. Neurosurg Rev 2023;46(1):149. PMID 37358655
18: Bou Monsef JN, Siemionow KB. Multilevel cervical laminectomy and fusion with posterior cervical cages. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 2017;8(4):316-21. PMID 29403242
19: Brain WR, Northfield D, Wilkinson M. The neurological manifestations of cervical spondylosis. Brain 1952;75:187-225. PMID 14934989
20: Breig A, Turnbull I, Hassler O. Effects of mechanical stresses on the spinal cord in cervical spondylosis. A study on fresh cadaver material. J Neurosurg 1966;25:45-56. PMID 5947047
21: Callanan G, Radcliff KE. Cervical total disc replacement: long-term outcomes. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2021;32(4):461-72. PMID 34538472
22: Campion C, Crawford CH, Glassman SD, Berkay F, Mkorombindo T, Carreon LY. Correction and maintenance of cervical alignment: 3-Level ACDF versus corpectomy-ACDF “hybrid" procedures. Clin Spine Surg 2023;36(4):E118-22. PMID 36097344
23: Carol MP, Ducker TB. Cervical spondylitic myelopathies: surgical treatment. J Spinal Disord 1988;1:59-65. PMID 2980063
24: Chang HK, Chang CC, Tu TH, et al. Four-level cervical disc arthroplasty. Int J Spine Surg 2024;18(5):514-20. PMID 38782588
25: Chiles BW 3rd, Leonard MA, Choudhri HF, Cooper PR. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: patterns of neurological deficit and recovery after anterior cervical decompression. Neurosurgery 1999;44:762-9. PMID 10201301
26: Clark CR. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: history and physical findings. Spine 1988;13:847-9. PMID 3194794
27: Clark E, Robinson PK. Cervical myelopathy: a complication of cervical spondylosis. Brain 1956;79:483-510. PMID 13364095
28: Cloward RB. Lesions of the intervertebral disc and their treatment by interbody fusion methods. Clin Orthop 1963;27:51-77. PMID 14021789
29: Coe JD, Vaccaro AR, Dailey AT, et al. Lateral mass screw fixation in the cervical spine: a systematic literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95(23):2136-43. PMID 24306701
30: Coric D, Guyer RD, Nunley PD, et al. Prospective, randomized multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 5-year results with a metal-on-metal artificial disc. J Neurosurg Spine 2018;28(3):252-61. PMID 29303467
31: Crandall PH, Batzdorf U. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg 1966;25(1):57-66. PMID 5947048
32: Dahdaleh NS, Wong AP, Smith ZA, Wong RH, Lam SK, Fessler RG. Microendoscopic decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurosurg Focus 2013;35(1):E8. PMID 23815253
33: Ding C, Hong Y, Liu H, Shi R, Song Y, Li T. Comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Acta Orthop Belg 2013;79(3):338-46. PMID 23926739
34: Dufour T, Huppert J, Louis C, et al. Radiological analysis of 37 segments in cervical spine implanted with a peek stand-alone device, with at least one year follow-up. Br J Neurosurg 2010;24(6):633-40. PMID 20632875
35: Ehni G. Cervical arthrosis: diseases of the cervical motion segments (spondylosis, disc rupture, radiculopathy and myelopathy). Chicago, Year Book Medical Publishers, 1984.
36: Eicker SO, Langen KJ, Galldiks N, et al. Clinical value of 2-deoxy-[(18)F]fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurosurg Focus 2013;35(1):E2. PMID 23815247
37: Ellingson BM, Woodworth DC, Leu K, Salamon N, Holly LT. Spinal cord perfusion MR imaging implicates both ischemia and hypoxia in the pathogenesis of cervical spondylosis. World Neurosurg 2019;128:e773-81. PMID 31077900
38: Epstein JA, Epstein NE. The surgical management of cervical spinal stenosis, spondylosis, and myeloradiculopathy by means of the posterior approach. In: CSR Society, editor. The Cervical Spine. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1989:625-69.
39: Epstein N, Epstein J, Carras R. Cervical spondylostenosis and related disorders in patients over 65: current management and diagnostic techniques. Orthotransactions 1987;11:15.
40: Epstein NE, Epstein JA, Carras R, Murthy VS, Hyman RA. Coexisting cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis: diagnosis and management. Neurosurgery 1984;15:489-96. PMID 6493458
41: Farfan HF. The pathological anatomy of degenerative spondylolisthesis. A cadaver study. Spine 1980;5(5):412-8. PMID 7455772
42: 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 2015;40(17)1322-8. PMID 26020847
43: Fessler RG, Steck JC, Giovanini MA. Anterior cervical corpectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurosurgery 1998;43(2):257-67. PMID 9696078
44: Flanagan EP, Krecke KN, Marsh RW, Giannini C, Keegan BM, Weinshenker BG. Specific pattern of gadolinium enhancement in spondylotic myelopathy. Ann Neurol 2014;76(1):54-65. PMID 24838831
45: Fouyas IP, Statham PF, Sandercock PA. Cochrane review on the role of surgery in cervical spondylotic radiculomyelopathy. Spine 2002;27(7):736-47. PMID 11923667
46: Ghogawala Z, Terrin N, Dunbar et al. Effect of ventral vs dorsal spinal surgery on patient-reported physical functioning in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2021;325(10):942-51. PMID 33687463
47: Gok B, McLoughlin GS, Sciubba DM, et al. Surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy with laminectomy and instrumented fusion. Neurol Res 2009;31(10):1097-101. PMID 19215639
48: Gorter K. Influence of laminectomy on the course of cervical myelopathy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1976;33:265-81. PMID 941717
49: Grisoli F, Graziani N, Fabrizi AP, et al. Anterior discectomy without fusion for treatment of cervical lateral soft disc extrusion: a follow-up of 120 cases. Neurosurgery 1989;24(6):853-9. PMID 2747859
50: Guo H, Sheng J, Sheng WB, Liang WD, Wang J, Xun CH. An eight-year follow-up study on the treatment of single-level cervical spondylosis through intervertebral disc replacement and anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Orthop Surg 2020;12(3):717-26. PMID 32291950
51: Heffez DS, Ross RE, Shade-Zeldow Y, et al. Clinical evidence for cervical myelopathy due to Chiari malformation and spinal stenosis in a non-randomized group of patients with the diagnosis of fibromyalgia. Eur Spine J 2004;13(6):516-23. PMID 15083352
52: Hoff J, Nishimura M, Pitts L. The role of ischemia in the pathogenesis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a review and new microangiographic evidence. Spine 1977;2:100-8.
53: Horgan MA, Kellogg JX, Chestnut RM. Posterior cervical arthrodesis and stabilization: an early report using a novel lateral mass screw and rod technique. Neurosurgery 1999;44:1267-71. PMID 10371626
54: Hou Y, Nie L, Pan X, et al. Effectiveness and safety of Mobi-C for treatment of single-level cervical disc spondylosis: a randomised control trial with a minimum of five years of follow-up. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(6):829-33. PMID 27235528
55: Hukuda S, Mochizuki T, Ogata M, Shichikawa K, Shimomura Y. Operations for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. A comparison of the results of anterior and posterior procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1985;67(4):609-15. PMID 4030860
56: Imajo Y, Kato Y, Yonemura H, Kanchiku T, Suzuki H, Taguchi T. Relative vulnerability of various spinal tracts in C3-4 cervical spondylotic myelopathy: multi-modalspinal cord evoked potentials. Spinal Cord 2011;49(11):1128-33. PMID 21727902
57: Jackson JA, Liv P, Sayed-Noor AS, Punnett L, Wahlström J. Risk factors for surgically treated cervical spondylosis in male construction workers: a 20-year prospective study Spine J 2022;S1529-9430(22)00872-5. PMID 36028215
58: Kadoya S, Nakamura T, Kwak R, Hirose G. Anterior osteophytectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy in developmentally narrow canal. J Neurosurg 1985;63(6):845-50. PMID 4056897
59: Kawaguchi Y, Nakano M, Yasuda T, et al. More than 20 years follow-up after en bloc cervical laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41(20):1570-9. PMID 27035583
60: Klimo P Jr, Peelle MW. Use of polyetheretherketone spacer and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in the cervical spine: a radiographic analysis. Spine J 2009;9(12):959-66. PMID 19574105
61: Kulkarni AG, Hee HT, Wong HK. Solis cage (PEEK) for anterior cervical fusion: preliminary radiological results with emphasis on fusion and subsidence. Spine J 2007;7(2):205-9. PMID 17321970
62: Kuncl RW, Cornblath DR, Griffin JW. Assessment of thoracic paraspinal muscles in the diagnosis of ALS. Muscle Nerve 1988;11(5):484-92. PMID 3287153
63: Lad SP, Patil CG, Berta S, Santarelli JG, Ho C, Boakye M. National trends in spinal fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Surg Neurol 2009;71(1):66-9. PMID 18514286
64: Lee CH, Lee J, Kang JD, et al. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: a meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine 2015;22(6):589-95. PMID 25815808
65: Lee CJ, Boody BS, Demeter J, Smucker JD, Sasso RC. Long-term radiographic and functional outcomes of patients with absence of radiographic union at 2 years after single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Global Spine J 2020a;10(6):741-7. PMID 32707013
66: Lee DH, Cho ST, Park S, Hwang CJ, Cho JH, Kim JH. Vertebral body sliding osteotomy as a surgical strategy for the treatment of cervical myelopathy: complications and pitfalls. Neurospine 2023;20(2):669-77. PMID 37401086
67: Lee DH, Park S, Lee WS, et al. Vertebral body sliding osteotomy for cervical myelopathy with rigid kyphosis. Neurospine 2020b;17(3):640-7. PMID 33022167
68: Lees F, Turner JW. A natural history and prognosis of cervical spondylosis. Br J Med 1963;2:1607-10. PMID 14066179
69: Levine DN. Pathogenesis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1997;62(4):334-40. PMID 9120444
70: Liang S, Yang F, Zhang Y, Zhao H, Wang X. Changes and clinical correlation of diffusion tensor imaging parameters of compressed spinal cord and nerve root in patients with cervical spondylosis. BMC Med Imaging 2022;22(1):107. PMID 35659198
71: Löfgren H, Osman A, Blomqvist A, Vavruch L. Sagittal alignment after laminectomy without fusion as treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: follow-up of minimum 4 years postoperatively. Global Spine J 2020;10(4):425-32. PMID 32435562
72: Lunsford LD, Bissonette DJ, Zorub DS. Anterior surgery for cervical disc disease. Part 2: treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy in 32 cases. J Neurosurg 1980;53(1):12-9. PMID 7411200
73: Mastronardi L, Elsawaf A, Roperto R, et al. Prognostic relevance of the postoperative evolution of intramedullary spinal cord changes in signal intensity on magnetic resonance imaging after anterior decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2007;7(6):615-22. PMID 18074686
74: Matsumoto M, Toyama Y, Ishikawa M, et al. Increased signal intensity of the spinal cord on magnetic resonance images in cervical compressive myelopathy. Does it predict the outcome of conservative treatment. Spine 2000;25(6):677-82. PMID 10752098
75: Mazanek D, Reddy A. Medical management of cervical spondylosis. Neurosurg 2007;60(1Suppl 1):43-50. PMID 17204885
76: McCormick PC. Clinical manifestations of myelopathy and radiculopathy. In: Cooper PH, editor. Degenerative Disease of the Spine. Park Ridge, IL: American Association of Neurological Surgeons, 1992:1-8.
77: Mihara H, Ohnari K, Hachiya M, Kondo S, Yamada K. Cervical myelopathy caused by C3-C4 spondylosis in elderly patients: a radiographic analysis of pathogenesis. Spine 2000;25(7):796-800. PMID 10751289
78: Montano N, Ricciardi L, Olivi A. Comparison of anterior cervical decompression and fusion versus laminoplasty in the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes. World Neurosurg 2019;130:530-6. PMID 31254693
79: Montgomery DM, Brower RS. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clinical syndrome and natural history. Orthop Clin North Am 1992;23(3):487-93. PMID 1620540
80: 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. Eur Spine J 2009;18(6):877-83. PMID 19357877
81: Mouw MD, Hitchon PW. Pathogenesis and natural history of degenerative disc and spinal disease. In: Tindall GT, Cooper PR, Barrow DL, editors. The Practice of Neurosurgery. Vol III. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1996:2357-65.
82: Nischal N, Tripathi S, Singh JP. Quantitative evaluation of the diffusion tensor imaging matrix parameters and the subsequent correlation with the clinical assessment of disease severity in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Asian Spine J 2021;15(6):808-16. PMID 33189108
83: Nishikawa H, Miya F, Kitano Y, Mori G, Shimizu S, Suzuki H. Positional occlusion of vertebral artery due to cervical spondylosis as rare cause of wake-up stroke: report of two cases. World Neurosurg 2017;98:877.e13-e21. PMID 27890763
84: Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: epidemiology, genetics, and pathogenesis. Spine 2015;40(12):E675-93. PMID 25839387
85: Nurboja B, Kachramanoglou C, Choi D. Cervical laminectomy vs laminoplasty: is there a difference in outcome and postoperative pain. Neurosurgery 2012;70(4):965-70. PMID 22015812
86: Nurick S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 1972;95(1):87-100. PMID 5023093
87: Ono K, Ebara S, Fuji T, et al. Myelopathy hand. New clinical signs of cervical cord damage. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1987;69(2):215-9. PMID 3818752
88: Ono K, Ota HK, Yamamoto T. Cervical myelopathy secondary to multiple spondylotic protusions: a clinicopathologic study. Spine 1977;2:109-25.
89: Pang X, Chunyu L, Peng B. Anterior cervical surgery for the treatment of cervicogenic headache caused by cervical spondylosis. Pain Res 2020;13:2783-9. PMID 33173327
90: Papadopoulos CA, Katonis P, Papagelopoulos PJ, Karampekios S, Hadjipavlou AG. Surgical decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: correlation between operative outcomes and MRI of the spinal cord. Orthopedics 2004;27(10):1087-91. PMID 15553950
91: Phillips FM, Lee JY, Geisler FH, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical investigation comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion 2-year results from the US FDA IDE clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38(15):E907-18. PMID 23591659
92: Puvanesarajah V, Shimer AL, Hassanzadeh H, Shen FH, Singla A. Readmission rates, reasons, and risk factors following anterior cervical fusion for cervical spondylosis in patients above 65 years of age. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42(2):78-84. PMID 27120061
93: Rikita T, Tanaka N, Nakanishi K, et al. The relationship between central motor conduction time and spinal cord compression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spinal Cord 2017;55(4):419-26. PMID 27801888
94: Sadeh M, Dabby R. Apparent C8-T1 radiculopathy with hand weakness due to mid-cervical spondylosis. J Clin Neurosci 2018;47:111-5. PMID 29097135
95: Sampath P, Bendebba M, Davis JD, Ducker TB. Outcome of patients treated for cervical myelopathy. A prospective multicenter study with independent clinical review. Spine 2000;25(6):670-6. PMID 10752097
96: Saucedo S, Katsuura Y. Preventing unnecessary surgery in patients presenting for orthopedic spine surgery: literature review and case series. J Orthop Case Rep 2023;13(5):76-81. PMID 37255643
97: Schmidek HH, Smith DA. Anterior cervical disc excision in cervical spondylosis. In: Schmidek HH, Sweet WH, editors. Operative Neurosurgical Techniques. Orlando: Grune and Stratton, 1988:1327-42.
98: Seo M, Choi D. Adjacent segment disease after fusion for cervical spondylosis; myth or reality. Br J Neurosurg 2008;22(2):195-9. PMID 18348013
99: Shahzad H, Alvarez PM, Pallumeera M, et al. Exploring the incidence and risk factors of reoperation for symptomatic adjacent segment disease following cervical decompression and fusion. N Am Spine Soc J 2023;17:100305. PMID 38264153
100: Shedid D, Benzel EC. Cervical spondylosis anatomy: pathophysiology and biomechanics. Neurosurg 2007;60(1 Suppl):1-15. PMID 17204889
101: Smith GW, Robinson RA. The treatment of certain cervical spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg 1958;40A:607-24. PMID 13539086
102: Steinmetz MP, Kager CD, Benzel EC. Ventral correction of postsurgical cervical kyphosis. J Neurosurg 2003;98(1 Suppl):1-7. PMID 12546381
103: Symon L, Lavender P. The surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurology 1967;17(2):117-27. PMID 6066872
104: Tachibana N, Oichi T, Kato S, et al. Spinal cord swelling in patients with cervical compression myelopathy. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019;20(1):284. PMID 31200693
105: Takahashi M, Yamashita Y, Sakamoto Y, Kojima R. Chronic cervical cord compression: clinical significance of increased signal intensity on MR images. Radiology 1989;173(1):219-24. PMID 2781011
106: Tashjian VS, Kohan E, McArthur DL, Holly LT. The relationship between preoperative cervical alignment and postoperative spinal cord drift after decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Surg Neurol 2009;72(2):112-7. PMID 19608004
107: Tumialan LM, Pan J, Rodts GE, Mummaneni PV. The safety and efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with polyetheretherketone spacer and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2: a review of 200 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2008;8(6):529-35. PMID 18518673
108: Ulubaba HE, Saglik S, Yildirim IO, Durak MA. Effectiveness of diffusion tensor imaging in determining cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Turk Neurosurg 2021;31(1):67-72. PMID 33491169
109: Vaidya R, Carp J, Sethi A, Bartol S, Craig J, Les CM. Complications of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. Eur Spine J 2007;16(8):1257-65. PMID 17387522
110: Weinberg DS, Rhee JM. Cervical laminoplasty: indication, technique, complications. J Spine Surg 2020;6(1):290-301. PMID 32309667
111: Wu JC, Ko CC, Yen YS, et al. Epidemiology of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and its risk of causing spinal cord injury: a national cohort study. Neurosurg Focus 2013;35(1):E10. PMID 23815246
112: Yabuki S, Takatsuki K, Otani K, et al. Headache in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Pain Res Manag 2020;2020:8856088. PMID 33062084
113: Yamada M, Furukawa Y, Hirohata M. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: frequent complications by cervical spondylosis. J Orthop Sci 2003;8(6):878-81. PMID 14648282
114: Yonenobu K. Cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy: when and what can surgery contribute to the treatment. Eur Spine J 2000;9(1):1-7. PMID 10766070
115: Young PH. Degenerative cervical disc disorders: pathophysiology and clinical syndromes. In: Young PH, editor. Microsurgery of the Cervical Spine. New York: Raven Press, 1991:49-63.
116: Zhai JI, Guo SG, Nie L, Hu JI. Comparison of the anterior and posterior approach in treating four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Chin Med J (Engl) 2020;133(23):2816-21. PMID 33273330
117: Zheng B, Hao D, Guo H, He B. ACDF vs TDR for patients with cervical spondylosis - an 8 year follow up study. BMC Surg 2017;17(1):113. PMID 29183306

Contributors

All contributors' financial relationships have been reviewed and mitigated to ensure that this and every other article is free from commercial bias.

Author

Saul S Schwarz MD

Dr. Schwarz of the University of Colorado Health Sciences has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
See Profile

Editor

Randolph W Evans MD

Dr. Evans of Baylor College of Medicine received honorariums from Abbvie, Amgen, Biohaven, Impel, Lilly, and Teva for speaking engagements.
See Profile

Former Authors

R George Williams MD
Richard S Polin MD
Anil Nanda MD FACS
Ravish Patwardhan MD
Ajay Jawahar MD
Rajesh Acharya MD

Patient Profile

Age range of presentation: 45 to 65+ years
Sex preponderance: male=female
Heredity: none
Population groups selectively affected: none selectively affected
Occupation groups selectively affected: none selectively affected

This is an article preview.
Start a Free Account
to access the full version.

Nearly 3,000 illustrations, including video clips of neurologic disorders.
Every article is reviewed by our esteemed Editorial Board for accuracy and currency.
Full spectrum of neurology in 1,200 comprehensive articles.
Listen to MedLink on the go with Audio versions of each article.

Questions or Comment?

MedLink®, LLC

3525 Del Mar Heights Rd, Ste 304
San Diego, CA 92130-2122

Toll Free (U.S. + Canada): 800-452-2400

US Number: +1-619-640-4660

Support: service@medlink.com

Editor: editor@medlink.com

ISSN: 2831-9125

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Associated Disorders

Lumbar stenosis

Differential Diagnosis

cervical spine instability with canal compromise due to chronic subluxations
C1-2 instability from rheumatoid pannus
chronic cervicomedullary compression
disseminated sclerosis
multiple sclerosis
- AIDS myelopathy
- lupus myelopathy
- A-beta-lipoproteinemia
- B12 deficiency
- tumors
- syringomyelia
- Chiari malformation
- primary lateral sclerosis
- vertebrobasilar ischemia
- chronic subdural hematoma
- sagittal meningioma
- amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
- fibromyalgia

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy …

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Introduction

Overview

Key points

Historical note and terminology

Clinical manifestations

Presentation and course

Prognosis and complications

Clinical vignette

Biological basis

Etiology and pathogenesis

Epidemiology

Prevention

Differential diagnosis

Diagnostic workup

Management

Special considerations

Anesthesia

Media

References

Contributors

Author

Editor

Former Authors

Patient Profile

ICD & OMIM codes

This is an article preview.
Start a Free Account
to access the full version.

Questions or Comment?

Also in This Category

Neurogenetics and genetic and genomic testing

Acute traumatic spinal cord injury

Tumors of the skull base

Toxic and nutritional deficiency optic neuropathies

Third nerve palsy

Nystagmus

Brain death/death by neurologic criteria

Outpatient rehabilitation of chronic neurologic conditions

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Introduction

Overview

Key points

Historical note and terminology

Clinical manifestations

Presentation and course

Prognosis and complications

Clinical vignette

Biological basis

Etiology and pathogenesis

Epidemiology

Prevention

Differential diagnosis

Diagnostic workup

Management

Special considerations

Anesthesia

Media

References

Contributors

Author

Editor

Former Authors

Patient Profile

ICD & OMIM codes

This is an article preview. Start a Free Account to access the full version.

Questions or Comment?

Also in This Category

Neurogenetics and genetic and genomic testing

Acute traumatic spinal cord injury

Tumors of the skull base

Toxic and nutritional deficiency optic neuropathies

Third nerve palsy

Nystagmus

Brain death/death by neurologic criteria

Outpatient rehabilitation of chronic neurologic conditions

This is an article preview.
Start a Free Account
to access the full version.