Would the one-stage combined approach lead to better long-term neurological outcomes than the posterior approach alone in multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy patients with T2-Weighted increased signal intensity? An 8-year follow-up results and propensity score matching analysis.

backgroundT2-weighted increased signal intensity (ISI) is commonly recognized as a sign of more severe spinal cord lesions, usually accompanied by worse neurological deficits and possibly worse postoperative neurological recovery. The combined approach could achieve better decompression and better neurological recovery for multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy (MDCM). The choice of surgical approach for MDCM with intramedullary T2-weighted ISI remains disputed. This study aimed to compare the neurological outcomes of posterior and one-stage combined posteroanterior approaches for MDCM with T2-weighted ISI.

methodsA total of 83 consecutive MDCM patients with confirmed ISI with at least three intervertebral segments operated between 2012 and 2014 were retrospectively enrolled. Preoperative demographic, radiological and clinical condition variables were collected, and neurological conditions were evaluated by the Japanese Orthopedic Assessment score (JOA) and Neck Disability Index (NDI). Propensity score matching analysis was conducted to produce pairs of patients with comparable preoperative conditions from the posterior-alone and combined groups. Both short-term and mid-term surgical outcomes were evaluated, including the JOA recovery rate (JOARR), NDI improvements, complications, and reoperations.

resultsA total of 83 patients were enrolled, of which 38 and 45 patients underwent posterior surgery alone and one-stage posteroanterior surgery, respectively. After propensity score matching, 38 pairs of comparable patients from the posterior and combined groups were matched. The matched groups presented similar preoperative clinical and radiological features and the mean follow-up duration were 111.6 ± 8.9 months. The preoperative JOA scores of the posterior and combined groups were 11.5 ± 2.2 and 11.1 ± 2.3, respectively (p = 0.613). The combined group presented with prolonged surgery duration(108.8 ± 28.0 and 186.1 ± 47.3 min, p = 0.028) and greater blood loss(276.3 ± 139.1 and 382.1 ± 283.1 ml, p<0.001). At short-term follow-up, the combined group presented a higher JOARR than the posterior group (posterior group: 50.7%±46.6%, combined group: 70.4%±20.3%, p = 0.024), while no significant difference in JOARR was observed between the groups at long-term follow-up (posterior group: 49.2%±48.5%, combined group: 59.6%±47.6%, p = 0.136). No significant difference was found in the overall complication and reoperation rates.

conclusionsFor MDCM patients with ISI, both posterior and one-stage posteroanterior approaches could achieve considerable neurological alleviations in short-term and long-term follow-up. With greater surgical trauma, the combined group presented better short-term JOARR but did not show higher efficacy in long-term neurological function preservation in patients with comparable preoperative conditions.