Aims. Developmental cervical spinal stenosis (DcSS) is a well-known predisposing factor for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) but there is a lack of consensus on its definition. This study aims to define DcSS based on MRI, and its multilevel characteristics, to assess the prevalence of DcSS in the general population, and to evaluate the presence of DcSS in the prediction of developing DCM. Methods. This cross-sectional study analyzed MRI spine morphological parameters at C3 to C7 (including anteroposterior (AP) diameter of spinal canal, spinal cord, and vertebral body) from DCM patients (n = 95) and individuals recruited from the general population (n = 2,019). Level-specific median AP spinal canal diameter from DCM patients was used to screen for stenotic levels in the population-based cohort. An individual with multilevel (≥ 3 vertebral levels) AP canal diameter smaller than the DCM median values was considered as having DcSS. The most optimal cut-off canal diameter per level for DcSS was determined by receiver operating characteristic analyses, and multivariable logistic regression was performed for the prediction of developing DCM that required surgery. Results. A total of 2,114 individuals aged 64.6 years (SD 11.9) who underwent surgery from March 2009 to December 2016 were studied. The most optimal cut-off canal diameters for DcSS are: C3 < 12.9 mm, C4 < 11.8 mm, C5 < 11.9 mm, C6 < 12.3 mm, and C7 < 13.3 mm. Overall, 13.0% (262 of 2,019) of the population-based cohort had multilevel DcSS. Multilevel DcSS (odds ratio (OR) 6.12 (95% CI 3.97 to 9.42); p < 0.001) and male sex (OR 4.06 (95% CI 2.55 to 6.45); p < 0.001) were predictors of developing DCM. Conclusion. This is the first MRI-based study for defining DcSS with multilevel canal narrowing. Level-specific cut-off canal diameters for DcSS can be used for early identification of individuals at risk of developing DCM. Individuals with DcSS at ≥ three levels and male sex are recommended for close monitoring or early intervention to avoid traumatic spinal cord injuries from stenosis. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1333–1341

We retrospectively examined the prevalence and natural history of asymptomatic lumbar canal stenosis in patients treated surgically for cervical compressive myelopathy in order to assess the influence of latent lumbar canal stenosis on the recovery after surgery. Of 214 patients who had undergone cervical laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy, we identified 69 (32%) with myelographically documented lumbar canal stenosis. Of these, 28 (13%) patients with symptomatic lumbar canal stenosis underwent simultaneous cervical and lumbar decompression. Of the remaining 41 (19%) patients with asymptomatic lumbar canal stenosis who underwent only cervical surgery, 39 were followed up for ≥ 1 year (mean 4.9 years (1 to 12)) and were included in the analysis (study group). Patients without myelographic evidence of lumbar canal stenosis, who had been followed up for ≥ 1 year after the cervical surgery, served as controls (135 patients; mean follow-up period 6.5 years (1 to 17)). Among the 39 patients with asymptomatic lumbar canal stenosis, seven had lumbar-related leg symptoms after the cervical surgery.

Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that 89.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 75.3 to 96.0) and 76.7% (95% CI 53.7 to 90.3) of the patients with asymptomatic lumbar canal stenosis were free from leg symptoms for three and five years, respectively. There were no significant differences between the study and control groups in the recovery rate measured by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score or improvement in the Nurick score at one year after surgery or at the final follow-up.

These results suggest that latent lumbar canal stenosis does not influence recovery following surgery for cervical myelopathy; moreover, prophylactic lumbar decompression does not appear to be warranted as a routine procedure for coexistent asymptomatic lumbar canal stenosis in patients with cervical myelopathy, when planning cervical surgery.

We evaluated the efficacy of anterior fusion alone compared with combined anterior and posterior fusion for the treatment of degenerative cervical kyphosis. Anterior fusion alone was undertaken in 15 patients (group A) and combined anterior and posterior fusion was carried out in a further 15 (group B). The degree and maintenance of the angle of correction, the incidence of graft subsidence, degeneration at adjacent levels and the rate of fusion were assessed radiologically and clinically and the rate of complications recorded. The mean angle of correction in group B was significantly higher than in group A (p = 0.0009). The mean visual analogue scale and the neck disability index in group B was better than in group A (p = 0.043, 0.0006). The mean operation time and the blood loss in B were greater than in group A (p < 0.0001, 0.037). Pseudarthrosis, subsidence of the cage, and problems related to the hardware were more prevalent in group A than in group B (p = 0.034, 0.025, 0.013).

Although the combined procedure resulted in a longer operating time and greater blood loss than with anterior fusion alone, our results suggest that for the treatment of degenerative cervical kyphosis the combined approach leads to better maintenance of sagittal alignment, a higher rate of fusion, a lower incidence of complications and a better clinical outcome.