OBJECTIVE: Currently there is limited evidence and guidance on the management of mild degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and asymptomatic spinal cord compression (ASCC). Anecdotal evidence suggest variance in clinical practice. The objectives of this study were to assess current practice and to quantify the variability in clinical practice.
METHODS: Spinal surgeons and some additional health professionals completed a web-based survey distributed by email to members of AO Spine and the Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) North American Society. Questions captured experience with DCM, frequency of DCM patient encounters, and standard of practice in the assessment of DCM. Further questions assessed the definition and management of mild DCM, and the management of ASCC.
RESULTS: A total of 699 respondents, mostly surgeons, completed the survey. Every world region was represented in the responses. Half (50.1%, n = 359) had greater than 10 years of professional experience with DCM. For mild DCM, standardised follow-up for non-operative patients was reported by 488 respondents (69.5%). Follow-up included a heterogeneous mix of investigations, most often at 6-month intervals (32.9%, n = 158). There was some inconsistency regarding which clinical features would cause a surgeon to counsel a patient towards surgery. Practice for ASCC aligned closely with mild DCM. Finally, there were some contradictory definitions of mild DCM provided in the form of free text.
CONCLUSIONS: Professionals typically offer outpatient follow up for patients with mild DCM and/or asymptomatic ASCC. However, what this constitutes varies widely. Further research is needed to define best practice and support patient care.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted. Skeletal maturity was determined using Risser, SSMS, TOCI and CVM for each patient. Crosstabulations of axial vs. appendicular markers were formed to analyze their concordance and discordance. Logistic and logarithmic regression models were run to assess longitudinal growth (postoperative height gain and leg-length growth) and curve modulation (follow-up instrumented Cobb correction after index operation), respectively. Models were compared using Akaike information criterion (AIC).
RESULTS: 34 patients (32 F/2 M, mean age: 12.8 ± 1.5 years, mean follow-up: 47.7 (24-80) months) were included. The median preoperative maturity stages were: Risser: 1 (-1-4), SSMS: 4 (1-7), TOCI: 6 (1-8) and CVM: 4 (1-6). At latest follow-up, all patients reached skeletal maturity. Concordance and discordance were observed between axial vs. appendicular systems that demonstrated a range of possible distributions of CVM, where trunk peak height velocity occurred before, simultaneously with or after the standing height peak height velocity. R-squared values for Risser, SSMS, TOCI and CVM were 0.701, 0.783, 0.810 and 0.811, respectively, for prediction of final height; 0.759, 0.821, 0.831 and 0.775 for final leg-length, and 0.507, 0.588, 0.668 and 0.673 for curve modulation. Delta AIC values demonstrated that different skeletal maturity assessment methods provided distinctive information regarding follow-up height gain, leg-length growth and curve behavior.
CONCLUSIONS: Risser score provided considerably less information for all three outcome variables. TOCI and SSMS provided substantial information regarding remaining leg-length assessments, while in terms of assessment of total height gain and curve modulation after surgery, CVM and TOCI offered substantial information and SSMS offered strong information. Mutual use of axial and appendicular markers may provide valuable insight concerning timing of surgery and magnitude of surgical correction.