1-year data on patient-reported outcome is enough after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy: a cohort study from the Swedish Spine register
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.42630Keywords:
Cervical spondylotic myelopathy, Degenerative cervical myelopathy, Follow-up, Outcomes, Patient Reported Outcome Measures, SpineAbstract
Background and purpose: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is the most common cause of spinal cord dysfunction in adults. Repeated follow-ups after surgery are resource consuming. The aim was to examine whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) change after the first year. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether it is necessary to obtain follow-up data from patients more than 1 year after surgery for DCM.
Methods: We included individuals treated surgically for DCM in the Swedish Spine registry (Swespine), with available preoperative, 1-, and 2-year PROMs, primarily the European Myelopathy Scale (EMS) and secondarily the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and the European Quality of life Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS). A tertiary analysis included available 5-year data. Median, interquartile range (IQR), and Bland–Altman plots were used to compare PROM data at different follow-up time points.
Results: 642 individuals had baseline, 1-, and 2-year follow-up data, of whom 347 also had 5-year data. EMS was 14 (12–16) preoperative, 15 (12–17) at the 1-year follow-up, and 15 (12–17) at the 2-year follow-up. Corresponding data for NDI was 38 (24–50), 25 (12–42), and 26 (12–42) and for EQ-VAS 50 (30–60), 60 (42–77), and 60 (40–75). Similar findings were seen in individuals who also had 5-year data. Bland–Altman plots indicated good agreement between 1- and 2-year data, and between 1- and 5-year data and were without proportional bias.
Conclusion: In individuals treated for DCM no clinically meaningful change in PROMs occurred after the 1-year follow-up.
Downloads
References
Kalsi-Ryan S, Karadimas S K, Fehlings M G. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: the clinical phenomenon and the current pathobiology of an increasingly prevalent and devastating disorder. Neuroscientist 2013; 19: 409-21. doi: 10.1177/1073858412467377. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858412467377
Evaniew N, Coyle M, Rampersaud Y R, Bailey C S, Bradley J W, Cadotte D W, et al. Timing of recovery after surgery for patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy: an observational study from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network. Neurosurgery 2023; 92: 271-82. doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000002213
Badhiwala J H, Witiw C D, Nassiri F, Akbar M A, Mansouri A, Wilson J R, et al. Efficacy and safety of surgery for mild degenerative cervical myelopathy: results of the AOSpine North America and International Prospective Multicenter Studies. Neurosurgery 2019; 84: 890-7. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyy133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyy133
Pandita N, Gupta S, Raina P, Srivastava A, Hakak A Y, Singh O, et al. Neurological recovery pattern in cervical spondylotic myelopathy after anterior surgery: a prospective study with literature review. Asian Spine J 2019; 13: 423-31. doi: 10.31616/asj.2018.0139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2018.0139
Khan I, Archer K R, Wanner J P, Byron M, Pennings J S, Sivaganesan A, et al. Trajectory of improvement in myelopathic symptoms from 3 to 12 months following surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. Neurosurgery 2020; 86: 763-68. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyz325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyz325
Moussellard H P, Meyer A, Biot D, Khiami F, Serial E. Early neurological recovery course after surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective study with 2-year follow-up using three different functional assessment tests. Eur Spine J 2014; 23: 1508-14. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3315-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3315-x
Wang K, Eftang C N, Jakobsen R B, Årøen A. Review of response rates over time in registry-based studies using patient-reported outcome measures. BMJ Open 2020; 10: e030808. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030808. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030808
Endler P, Ekman P, Möller H, Gerdhem P. Outcomes of posterolateral fusion with and without instrumentation and of interbody fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis: a prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99: 743-52. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.16.00679. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00679
Dvorak J, Sutter M, Herdmann J. Cervical myelopathy: clinical and neurophysiological evaluation. Eur Spine J 2003 12: S181-S187. doi: 10.1007/s00586-003-0631-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-003-0631-y
Herdmann J, Linzbach M, Krzan M, Dvorak J, Bock W J. The European Myelopathy Score. In: Bauer B L, Brock M, Klinger M, editors. Cerebellar infarct. Midline tumors. Minimally invasive endoscopic neurosurgery (MIEN). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1994. pp 266-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-78801-7_43
de Dios E, Löfgren H, Laesser M, Lindhagen L, Björkman-Butcher I M, MacDowall A. Comparison of the patient-derived modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale and the European myelopathy score. Eur Spine J 2024; 33(3): 1205-12. doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-08067-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-08067-8
Tetreault L, Nouri A, Kopjar B, Côté P, Fehlings M G. The minimum clinically important difference of the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Spine 2015; 40: 1653-9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001127
Burström K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res 2001; 10: 621-35. doi: 10.1023/a:1013171831202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013171831202
Dolan P, Roberts J. Modelling valuations for EQ-5D health states: an alternative model using differences in valuations. Med Care 2002; 40: 442-6. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200205000-00009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200205000-00009
Joelson A, Nerelius F, Sigmundsson F G, Karlsson J. The minimal important change for the EQ VAS based on the SF-36 health transition item: observations from 25772 spine surgery procedures. Qual Life Res 2022; 31: 3459-66. doi: 10.1007/s11136-022-03182-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03182-3
Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991; 14: 409-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/t35122-000
Young B A, Walker M J, Strunce J B, Boyles R E, Whitman J M, Childs J D. Responsiveness of the Neck Disability Index in patients with mechanical neck disorders. Spine J 2009; 9: 802-8. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.06.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2009.06.002
Hjermstad M J, Fayers P M, Haugen D F, Caraceni A, Hanks G W, Loge J H, et al. Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2011; 41: 1073-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016
Carreon L Y, Glassman S D, Campbell M J, Anderson P A. Neck Disability Index, Short Form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm paIn: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion. Spine J 2010; 10: 469-74. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.007
Pool J J M, Ostelo R W J G, Hoving J L, Bouter L M, de Vet H C W. Minimal clinically important change of the Neck Disability Index and the Numerical Rating Scale for patients with neck pain. Spine 2007; 32: 3047-51. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815cf75b. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815cf75b
Giavarina D. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Medica 2015; 25: 141-51. doi: 10.11613/BM.2015.015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2015.015
Posit team. RStudio: integrated development environment for R; 2024. Available from: http://www.posit.co/
Endler P, Ekman P, Hellström F, Möller H, Gerdhem P. Minor effect of loss to follow-up on outcome interpretation in the Swedish spine register. Eur Spine J 2020; 29: 213-20. doi: 10.1007/s00586-019-06181-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06181-0
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Lovisa Gerdhem, Anna MacDowall, Paul Gerdhem
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
