Risk factors affecting cervical spondylotic myelopathy complicated with traumatic central cord syndrome and the efficacy of different treatment options.

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the influencing factors and treatment options of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) complicated with traumatic central cord syndrome (TCCS).

Methods: A total of 243 patients with CSM admitted to our hospital from January 2021 to September 2022 were retrospectively analyzed, and then divided into the control group (n = 152) and the observation group (n = 91) according to the presence or absence of concurrent TCCS. The clinical data and imaging data of the two groups were compared, and multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the influencing factors of CSM complicated with TCCS. Patients in the observation group were further divided into the zero notch anterior cervical interbody fusion device (Zero-P) group (n = 45) and the cervical spine locking plate (CSLP) group (n = 46) according to the treatment mode, and the perioperative indexes of the two groups were compared. The treatment effects were evaluated by the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) and the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) before surgery, 1 week after surgery and 6 months after surgery. The height of intervertebral space and the cervical lordosis angle were measured.

Results: Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the injury mechanism (hyperextension injury), hand muscle weakness, cervical instability, age, degree of cervical spinal stenosis, degree of cervical spinal cord compression, and changes in intramedullary high signal were the risk factors, while the type of compression (soft), ASIA score and JOA score were the protective factor for CSM complicated with TCCS (P < 0.05). Patients in Zero-P group had much shorter operation time and hospitalization time than these in CSLP group (P < 0.05). The cervical lordosis angle and intervertebral space height at 1 week and 6 months after operation in the two groups were both largely higher than these before operation, and the cervical lordosis angle and intervertebral space height in the Zero-P group were significantly higher than these in the CSLP group one week after surgery (P < 0.05). The ASIA score and JOA score were obviously increased in the two groups 1 week and 6 months after surgery, and the ASIA score and JOA score in the Zero-P group were significantly higher than these in the CSLP group at 1 week after surgery (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: The mechanism of TCCS in CSM is still controversial, which it is generally believed to be caused by cervical hyperextension injury. The clinical symptoms are diverse, and the treatment methods are also different. This study shows that the mechanism of injury, type of compression, hand muscle weakness, cervical instability, age, cervical stenosis compression, and intramedullary high signal changes are all risk factors for CSM complicated with TCCS. Early identification of risk factors and targeted interventions can effectively reduce the complicated rate of TCCS. Zero-P and CSLP surgical fixation have good efficacy in the treatment of TCCS, and there is little difference in efficacy between the two. However, Zero-P fixation surgery has the advantages of short operation time and fast postoperative recovery.