Cervical Spondylosis Treatment & Management

  • Author: Hassan Ahmad Hassan Al-Shatoury, MD, PhD, MHPE; Chief Editor: Consuelo T Lorenzo, MD   more...
 
Updated: Apr 18, 2012
 

Rehabilitation Program

Physical Therapy

  • Immobilization of the cervical spine is the mainstay of conservative treatment for patients with cervical spondylosis. Immobilization limits the motion of the neck, thereby reducing nerve irritation. Soft cervical collars are recommended for daytime use only, but they are unable to appreciably limit the motion of the cervical spine. More rigid orthoses (eg, Philadelphia collar, Minerva body jacket) can significantly immobilize the cervical spine (see Special Concerns). The patient's tolerance and compliance are considerations when any of the braces are used. A program of isometric cervical exercises may help to limit the loss of muscle tone that results from the use of more restrictive orthoses. Molded cervical pillows can better align the spine during sleep and provide symptomatic relief for some patients.
  • Mechanical traction is a widely used technique. This form of treatment may be useful because it promotes immobilization of the cervical region and widens the foraminal openings. However, traction in the treatment of cervical pain was not better than placebo in 2 randomized groups.
  • The use of cervical exercises has been advocated in patients with cervical spondylosis. Isometric exercises are often beneficial to maintain the strength of the neck muscles. Neck and upper back stretching exercises, as well as light aerobic activities, also are recommended. The exercise programs are best initiated and monitored by a physical therapist.
  • Passive modalities generally involve the application of heat to the tissues in the cervical region, either by means of superficial devices (eg, moist-heat packs) or mechanisms for deep-heat transfer (eg, ultrasound, diathermy).
  • Manual therapy, such as massage, mobilization, and manipulation, may provide further relief for patients with cervical spondylosis. Mobilization is performed by a physical therapist and is characterized by the application of gentle pressure within or at the limits of normal motion, with the goal of increasing the ROM. Manual traction may be better tolerated than mechanical traction in some patients. Manipulation is characterized by a high-velocity thrust, which is often delivered at or near the limit of the ROM. The intention is to increase articular mobility or to realign the spine. Contraindications to manipulative therapy include myelopathy, severe degenerative changes, fracture or dislocation, infection, malignancy, ligamentous instability, and vertebrobasilar insufficiency.

Occupational Therapy

Patients with upper extremity weakness often lose their ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL), vocational activities, or recreational activities. Lifestyle modifications may involve an evaluation of workplace ergonomics, postural training, neck-school therapy (supervised, small-group therapy), stress management, and vocational assistance. Disability can be improved with specific strengthening exercises of the upper extremities, special splinting to compensate for weakness, and the use of assistive devices that allow the patient to perform previously impossible activities.

Recreational Therapy

The recreational therapist can use recreational and community activity to accomplish the following:

  • Help the patient maintain his/her physical strength, social skills, and motivation
  • Assist the patient and family in adjusting to the disability
  • Decrease the patient's atypical behaviors
  • Increase the patient's independence
  • Reinforce other therapies
  • Provide community integration
  • Further evaluate the level of functioning in cases of severe disability caused by cervical spondylosis
Next

Medical Issues/Complications

Cervical spondylosis may result in complications (see Mortality/Morbidity), including the following:

  • Cervical myelopathy
  • Paraplegia
  • Tetraplegia
  • Recurrent chest infection
  • Pressure sores
  • Recurrent urinary tract infection
Previous
Next

Surgical Intervention

Indications for surgery include the following:

  • Progressive neurologic deficits
  • Documented compression of the cervical nerve root and/or spinal cord
  • Intractable pain

The aims of surgery are to relieve pain and neuronal structure compression, as well as, in select cases, to achieve stabilization.

Approaches for surgery are anterior or posterior.

Anterior approaches include the following[12, 13] :

  • Diskectomy without bone graft
  • Diskectomy with bone graft
  • Cervical instrumentation

Posterior approaches include the following[1, 14] :

  • Decompressive laminectomy and foraminotomy
  • Hemilaminectomy
  • Laminoplasty[15]

Data from the AOSpine North America Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Study show the majority of complications due to surgical treatment of CSM are treatable. Complications that do arise are often associated with greater age, increased operative time, and use of combined anterior-posterior procedures.[16]

Previous
Next

Consultations

Consultations with the following specialists may be helpful:

  • Psychologist or psychiatrist
  • Neurologist
  • Neurosurgeon and/or orthopedic spinal surgeon
  • Urologist
  • Internist
  • Occupational therapist
  • Physical therapist
  • Recreational therapist
  • Social worker
Previous
Next

Other Treatment

Injection

Cervical, zygapophyseal, intra-articular steroid injection can be helpful for active synovitis. The facet injections can be diagnostic and therapeutic. Mechanical facet pain is better evaluated with facet joint nerve blocks. Long-term relief can often be accomplished with a rhizotomy procedure. Cervical epidural block might be beneficial in cervical spondylosis, especially if an inflammatory component is present. Epidural and selective nerve root blocks can be diagnostically and therapeutically helpful in cases of radiculopathy. Trigger-point injections may be helpful.

Treatment of bowel and bladder dysfunction

Some patients with bowel dysfunction may benefit from a daily suppository, enema, or oral laxative. The administration should be followed by digital stimulation so that the patient's defecation occurs at a predictable time. Evaluate bladder incontinence with urodynamic studies. Pharmacologic intervention is possible in some patients, but many individuals need an intermittent catheterization program and control of fluid intake. An indwelling catheter is occasionally required if the patient does not have the dexterity to comply with a catheter program.

Rehabilitative nursing

A nurse should be involved in the educational process regarding the development of an effective bowel and/or bladder program and the prevention of pressure sores.

Psychosocial support

Patients with significant disability often react with fear, anxiety, or depression. Postoperative depression is significantly associated with pain intensity, pain interference, and pain-related disability. Results of one study of depression and negative affect among spinal surgery patients suggest postoperative screening for depression and treating depression to improve functional outcomes after spine surgery.[17] Referral to a psychologist or psychiatrist for psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, and/or family counseling may be indicated.

Previous
Proceed to Medication
 
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Hassan Ahmad Hassan Al-Shatoury, MD, PhD, MHPE,  Associate Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Suez Canal University; Co-Director, Center of Research and Development in Medical Education and Health Services Suez Canal University Hospital

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Ayman Ali Galhom, MD, PhD  Lecturer (Associated Professor), Department of Neurosurgery, Suez Canal University Faculty of Medicine, Egypt

Ayman Ali Galhom, MD, PhD is a member of the following medical societies: Congress of Neurological Surgeons

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Curtis W Slipman, MD  Director, University of Pennsylvania Spine Center; Associate Professor, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center

Curtis W Slipman, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Association of Academic Physiatrists, International Association for the Study of Pain, and North American Spine Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD  Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Medscape Salary Employment

Patrick M Foye, MD  Associate Professor of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Co-Director of Musculoskeletal Fellowship, Co-Director of Back Pain Clinic, Director of Coccyx Pain Service (Tailbone Pain Service: www.TailboneDoctor.com), University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey Medical School

Patrick M Foye, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, Association of Academic Physiatrists, and International Spine Intervention Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Kelly L Allen, MD  Medical Director, Medevals

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Consuelo T Lorenzo, MD  Physiatrist, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Alegent Health Immanuel Rehabilitation Center

Consuelo T Lorenzo, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Additional Contributors

The editors would like to thank Franklin C Wagner, Jr, MD, Former Chief, Division of Spine and Spinal Cord Surgery, Former Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, for his previous association with this article.

References
  1. Epstein N. Posterior approaches in the management of cervical spondylosis and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Surg Neurol. Sep-Oct 2002;58(3-4):194-207; discussion 207-8. [Medline].

  2. Epstein N. Ossification of the cervical posterior longitudinal ligament: a review. Neurosurg Focus. Aug 15 2002;13(2):ECP1. [Medline].

  3. Ozer AF, Oktenoglu T, Cosar M, et al. Long-term follow-up after open-window corpectomy in patients with advanced cervical spondylosis and/or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Spinal Disord Tech. Feb 2009;22(1):14-20. [Medline].

  4. Wang MC, Kreuter W, Wolfla CE, et al. Trends and variations in cervical spine surgery in the United States: Medicare beneficiaries, 1992 to 2005. Spine. Apr 2 2009;[Medline].

  5. Miranda P, Gomez P, Alday R. Acute traumatic central cord syndrome: analysis of clinical and radiological correlations. J Neurosurg Sci. Dec 2008;52(4):107-12; discussion 112. [Medline].

  6. Patel AA, Spiker WR, Daubs M, Brodke DS, Cannon-Albright LA. Evidence of an inherited predisposition for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Jan 1 2012;37(1):26-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  7. Young WF. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a common cause of spinal cord dysfunction in older persons. Am Fam Physician. Sep 1 2000;62(5):1064-70, 1073. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  8. Kuijper B, Tans JT, van der Kallen BF, Nollet F, Lycklama A Nijeholt GJ, de Visser M. Root compression on MRI compared with clinical findings in patients with recent onset cervical radiculopathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. May 2011;82(5):561-3. [Medline].

  9. Tsiptsios I, Fotiou F, Sitzoglou K, et al. Neurophysiological investigation of cervical spondylosis. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. Jul-Aug 2001;41(5):305-13. [Medline].

  10. Weber M, Eisen A. Are motor evoked potentials (MEPs) helpful in the differential diagnosis of spondylotic cervical myelopathy (SCM)?. Suppl Clin Neurophysiol. 2000;53:419-23. [Medline].

  11. Stetkarova I, Kofler M. Cutaneous silent periods in the assessment of mild cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. Jan 1 2009;34(1):34-42. [Medline].

  12. Uribe JS, Sangala JR, Duckworth EA, et al. Comparison between anterior cervical discectomy fusion and cervical corpectomy fusion using titanium cages for reconstruction: analysis of outcome and long-term follow-up. Eur Spine J. Feb 12 2009;[Medline].

  13. Ramzi N, Ribeiro-Vaz G, Fomekong E, et al. Long term outcome of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using coral grafts. Acta Neurochir (Wien). Dec 2008;150(12):1249-56; discussion 1256. [Medline].

  14. Epstein NE. Laminectomy for cervical myelopathy. Spinal Cord. Jun 2003;41(6):317-27. [Medline].

  15. Wang MY, Shah S, Green BA. Clinical outcomes following cervical laminoplasty for 204 patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Surg Neurol. Dec 2004;62(6):487-92; discussion 492-3. [Medline].

  16. Fehlings MG, Smith JS, Kopjar B, Arnold PM, Yoon ST, Vaccaro AR, et al. Perioperative and delayed complications associated with the surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy based on 302 patients from the AOSpine North America Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Study. J Neurosurg Spine. Feb 10 2012;[Medline].

  17. Seebach CL, Kirkhart M, Lating JM, Wegener ST, Song Y, Riley LH 3rd, et al. Examining the role of positive and negative affect in recovery from spine surgery. Pain. Mar 2012;153(3):518-25. [Medline].

  18. Wang MC, Chan L, Maiman DJ, et al. Complications and mortality associated with cervical spine surgery for degenerative disease in the United States. Spine. Feb 1 2007;32(3):342-7. [Medline].

  19. Alexander JT. Natural history and nonoperative management of cervical spondylosis. In: Menezes AH, Sonnatage VH, eds. Principles of Spinal Surgery. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1996:547-57.

  20. Binder AI. Cervical spondylosis and neck pain. BMJ. Mar 10 2007;334(7592):527-31. [Medline].

  21. Braddom RL. Management of common cervical pain syndromes. In: DeLisa JA, ed. Rehabilitation Medicine: Principles and Practice. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1993:1036-46.

  22. Carr RG. The physiatrist and cervical spondylosis. In: Saunders RL, Bernini PM, eds. Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy. Boston, Mass: Blackwell Scientific; 1992:96-109.

  23. Chan CW. Spinal cord injury. In: Sinaki M, ed. Basic Clinical Rehabilitation Medicine. Minneapolis, Minn: Mosby-Year Book; 1993:183-94.

  24. Clark CR. Degenerative conditions of the spine: differential diagnosis and non-surgical treatment. In: Frymoyer JW, ed. The Adult Spine: Principles and Practice. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1991:1154-64.

  25. Fiscgrund JS, Herkowitz HN. Cervical spondylotic radiculopathy, natural history and pathophysiology. In: Herkowitz HN, Rothman RH, Simeone FA, eds. Rothman-Simeone, the Spine. 4th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1999:461-5.

  26. Fouyas IP, Statham PF. Operative treatment of cervical spondylosis. Br J Neurosurg. Dec 1998;12(6):594-5. [Medline].

  27. Hoff JT, Panadopoulos SM. Cervical disc disease and cervical spondylosis. In: Wilkins RH, Rengachary SS, eds. Neurosurgery. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1996:3756-74.

  28. Iwabuchi M, Kikuchi S, Sato K. Pathoanatomic investigation of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Fukushima J Med Sci. Dec 2004;50(2):47-54. [Medline].

  29. Jumah KB, Nyame PK. Relationship between load carrying on the head and cervical spondylosis in Ghanaians. West Afr J Med. Jul-Sep 1994;13(3):181-2. [Medline].

  30. Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednarík J, et al. Predictive factors for mild forms of spondylotic cervical myelopathy treated conservatively or surgically. Eur J Neurol. Jan 2005;12(1):16-24.

  31. Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednarík J, et al. Predictive factors for spondylotic cervical myelopathy treated conservatively or surgically. Eur J Neurol. Jan 2005;12(1):55-63.

  32. Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishihara H, et al. Pathomechanism of myelopathy and surgical results of laminoplasty in elderly patients with cervical spondylosis. Spine. Oct 1 2003;28(19):2209-14. [Medline].

  33. Kimura R, Park YS, Nakase H, et al. Syringomyelia caused by cervical spondylosis. Acta Neurochir (Wien). Feb 2004;146(2):175-8. [Medline].

  34. Nurick S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain. 1972;95(1):87-100. [Medline].

  35. Papadopoulos CA, Katonis P, Papagelopoulos PJ, et al. Surgical decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: correlation between operative outcomes and MRI of the spinal cord. Orthopedics. Oct 2004;27(10):1087-91. [Medline].

  36. Rao RD, Currier BL, Albert TJ, et al. Degenerative cervical spondylosis: clinical syndromes, pathogenesis, and management. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Jun 2007;89(6):1360-78. [Medline].

  37. Sakaura H, Hosono N, Mukai Y, et al. Long-term outcome of laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy due to disc herniation: a comparative study of laminoplasty and anterior spinal fusion. Spine. Apr 1 2005;30(7):756-9. [Medline].

  38. Sari-Kouzel H, Cooper R. Managing pain from cervical spondylosis. Practitioner. Apr 1999;243(1597):334-8. [Medline].

  39. Singh A, Crockard HA, Platts A, et al. Clinical and radiological correlates of severity and surgery-related outcome in cervical spondylosis. J Neurosurg. Apr 2001;94(2 Suppl):189-98. [Medline].

Previous
Next
 
A cervical myelogram shows advanced spondylotic changes and multiple compression of the spinal cord by osteophytes.
A 59-year-old woman presented with a spastic gait and weakness in her upper extremities. A T2-weighted sagittal magnetic resonance imaging scan shows cord compression from cervical spondylosis, which caused central spondylotic myelopathy. Note the signal changes in the cord at C4-C5, the ventral osteophytosis, buckling of the ligamentum flavum at C3-C4, and the prominent loss of disk height between C2 and C5.
A T2-weighted cervical magnetic resonance imaging scan shows obliteration of the subarachnoid space as a result of spondylotic changes.
A 48-year-old man presented with neck pain and predominantly left-sided radicular symptoms in the arm. The patient's symptoms resolved with conservative therapy. An axial, gradient-echo magnetic resonance imaging scan shows moderate anteroposterior narrowing of the cord space due to a ventral osteophyte at the C4 level, with bilateral narrowing of the neural foramina (more prominently on the left side).
A 48-year-old man presented with neck pain and predominantly left-sided radicular symptoms in the arm. The patient's symptoms resolved with conservative therapy. A T2-weighted sagittal magnetic resonance imaging scan shows ventral osteophytosis, most prominent between C4 and C7, with reduction of the ventral cerebrospinal fluid sleeve.
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2012 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

DISCLAIMER: The content of this Website is not influenced by sponsors. The site is designed primarily for use by qualified physicians and other medical professionals. The information contained herein should NOT be used as a substitute for the advice of an appropriately qualified and licensed physician or other health care provider. The information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only. In no way should it be considered as offering medical advice. Please check with a physician if you suspect you are ill.