System Maintenance Notice

Please note that maintenance work is scheduled between 4 AM and 5 AM - CET. During this time, you may experience reduced performance. Thanks for your patience.

Publications

Journal Article Epublish

PubMed: 42436918 DOI: 10.1016/j.bas.2026.106155

Do patients with Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy recover as quickly and as well after surgery as patients suffering from other degenerative disorders of the cervical spine?

Brain Spine 6:106155

Authors: Francine Mariaux, Anne F Mannion, Fabio Galbusera, Andrea Cina, François Porchet, Daniel Haschtmann, Markus Loibl, Frank S Kleinstück, Tamás F Fekete

Affiliations

  • Department of Teaching, Research and Development, Spine Centre Division, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, Zurich, 8008, Switzerland.
  • Eidgenössiche Technische Hochschule (ETH), Department of Health Sciences and Technology (D-HEST), ETH Zurich, Lengghalde 2, Zurich, 8008, Switzerland.
  • Spine Centre, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, Zurich, 8008, Switzerland.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord damage in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (DCM) makes it a distinct subgroup of degenerative cervical spine disorders, as the central nervous system is affected.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Are the pattern and extent of change in patient-reported outcomes over time comparable between patients with DCM and those with other degenerative cervical spine disorders?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pre-operatively and at 3, 12, 24 and 60 months' follow-up (Time factor), patients undergoing cervical spine surgery for degenerative disorders completed a questionnaire comprising the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI, 0-10), Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS, dichotomised as yes/no), and Global Treatment Outcome (GTO, dichotomised as good/poor). Patients with DCM and controls (Group factor) were propensity-score matched based on baseline and surgical variables. Data were analysed using General Estimating Equations.

RESULTS

708 patients (354 DCM, 354 controls; 61.7 ± 10.7 years; 43% female) could be matched and analysed. Time was statistically significant for all outcomes (p < 0.01), but Group only for GTO (p = 0.001). The Time × Group interaction was not significant (COMI p = 0.101; PASS p = 0.062; GTO p = 0.152), indicating similar changes over time for both groups. PASS improved significantly from baseline up to 12 months and COMI up to 24 months. Overall, 7.5% fewer DCM patients than controls reported a good GTO (p = 0.002).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Recovery patterns over time were similar in DCM and control patients. Differences were observed only for GTO, with fewer DCM patients rating their surgical outcome as good, although COMI and PASS were comparable between the groups.

MeSH

Spinal Cord Diseases, Spine, Cervical Vertebrae