Study Design: Guideline development. Objectives: The objective of this study is to develop guidelines that outline how to best manage (1) patients with mild, moderate, and severe myelopathy and (2) nonmyelopathic patients with evidence of cord compression with or without clinical symptoms of radiculopathy. Methods: Five systematic reviews of the literature were conducted to synthesize evidence on disease natural history; risk factors of disease progression; the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of nonoperative and surgical management; the impact of preoperative duration of symptoms and myelopathy severity on treatment outcomes; and the frequency, timing, and predictors of symptom development. A multidisciplinary guideline development group used this information, and their clinical expertise, to develop recommendations for the management of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Results: Our recommendations were as follows: (1) “We recommend surgical intervention for patients with moderate and severe DCM.” (2) “We suggest offering surgical intervention or a supervised trial of structured rehabilitation for patients with mild DCM. If initial nonoperative management is pursued, we recommend operative intervention if there is neurological deterioration and suggest operative intervention if the patient fails to improve.” (3) “We suggest not offering prophylactic surgery for non-myelopathic patients with evidence of cervical cord compression without signs or symptoms of radiculopathy. We suggest that these patients be counseled as to potential risks of progression, educated about relevant signs and symptoms of myelopathy, and be followed clinically.” (4) “Non-myelopathic patients with cord compression and clinical evidence of radiculopathy with or without electrophysiological confirmation are at a higher risk of developing myelopathy and should be counselled about this risk. We suggest offering either surgical intervention or nonoperative treatment consisting of close serial follow-up or a supervised trial of structured rehabilitation. In the event of myelopathic development, the patient should be managed according to the recommendations above.” Conclusions: These guidelines will promote standardization of care for patients with DCM, decrease the heterogeneity of management strategies and encourage clinicians to make evidence-informed decisions.

Study Design: Systematic review (update). Objective: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a progressive degenerative spine disease that is increasingly managed surgically. The objective of this study is to determine the role of nonoperative treatment in the management of DCM by updating a systematic review published by Rhee and colleagues in 2013. The specific aims of this review were (1) to determine the comparative efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of nonoperative and surgical treatment; (2) to assess whether myelopathy severity differentially affects outcomes of nonoperative treatment; and (3) to evaluate whether activities or minor injuries are associated with neurological deterioration. Methods: Methods from the original review were used to search for new literature published between July 20, 2012, and February 12, 2015. Results: The updated search yielded 2 additional citations that met inclusion criteria and compared the efficacy of conservative management and surgical treatment. Based on a single retrospective cohort, there were no significant differences in posttreatment Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) or Neck Disability Index scores or JOA recovery ratios between patients treated nonoperatively versus operatively. A second retrospective study indicated that the incidence rate of hospitalization for spinal cord injury was 13.9 per 1000 person-years in a nonoperative group compared with 9.4 per 1000 person-years in a surgical group (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.57; 95% confidence interval = 1.11-2.22; P =.011). Conclusion: Nonoperative management results in similar outcomes as surgical treatment in patients with a modified JOA ≥ 13, single-level myelopathy and intramedullary signal change on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Furthermore, patients managed nonoperatively for DCM have higher rates of hospitalization for spinal cord injury than those treated surgically. The overall level of evidence for these findings was rated as low.

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review to determine (1) change in function, pain, and quality of life following structured nonoperative treatment for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM); (2) variability of change in function, pain, and quality of life following different types of structured nonoperative treatment; (3) differences in outcomes observed between certain subgroups (eg, baseline severity score, duration of symptoms); and (4) negative outcomes and harms resulting from structured nonoperative treatment. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Collaboration for articles published between January 1, 1950, and February 9, 2015. Studies were included if they evaluated outcomes following structured nonoperative treatment, including therapeutic exercise, manual therapy, cervical bracing, and/or traction. The quality of each study was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and strength of the overall body of evidence was rated using guidelines outlined by the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group. Results: Of the 570 retrieved citations, 8 met inclusion criteria and were summarized in this review. Based on our results, there is very low evidence to suggest that structured nonoperative treatment for DCM results in either a positive or negative change in function as evaluated by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score. Conclusion: There is a lack of evidence to determine the role of nonoperative treatment in patients with DCM. However, in the majority of studies, patients did not achieve clinically significant gains in function following structured nonoperative treatment. Furthermore, 23% to 54% of patients managed nonoperatively subsequently underwent surgical treatment.

Study Design: Cross-sectional survey study. Objective: To determine what are the most commonly used graft materials in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and whether the choice of graft is affected by surgeon’s training, years in practice, geographic location, practice setting, or surgeon’s perceived difficulty in achieving fusion. Methods: A 23-question survey was sent out to 5334 surgeons using the Global AO Spine database. Response data was then stratified into surgeon training, years of practice, practice type, and global region. Results: Overall, surgeons believe that graft selection affects fusion rates (89.3% of surgeons) and affects time to fusion (86.0% of surgeons). The use of a cage is currently the most common structural graft component used worldwide at 64.1%. Of surgeons that use cages, the PEEK Cage makes up 84%. North American surgeons differ from this global trend and use composite allograft more commonly. The choice to add a nonstructural graft component was reported at 74%. This result was similar for performing multilevel fusions at 72.8%. The selection of nonstructural graft material depends on whether the type of surgery is considered simple or complex. Most surgeons are not satisfied with available literature comparing effectiveness of grafts but believed that there was sufficient evidence to support the use of their chosen graft. Conclusion: Almost all surgeons believe that fusion is important to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery outcomes and that most surgeons believe graft choice affects fusion. However, this survey indicates that there is great variability in the type of graft material used by spine surgeons across the world.