Santaguida, Carlo

Importance The modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scale is the most common scale used to represent outcomes of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM); however, it lacks consideration for neck pain scores and neglects the multidimensional aspect of recovery after surgery. Objective To use a global statistical approach that incorporates assessments of multiple outcomes to reassess the efficacy of riluzole in patients undergoing spinal surgery for DCM. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a secondary analysis of prespecified secondary end points within the Efficacy of Riluzole in Surgical Treatment for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy (CSM-PROTECT) trial, a multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 randomized clinical trial conducted from January 2012 to May 2017. Adult surgical patients with DCM with moderate to severe myelopathy (mJOA scale score of 8-14) were randomized to receive either riluzole or placebo. The present study was conducted from July to December 2023. Intervention Riluzole (50 mg twice daily) or placebo for a total of 6 weeks, including 2 weeks prior to surgery and 4 weeks following surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measure was a difference in clinical improvement from baseline to 1-year follow-up, assessed using a global statistical test (GST). The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Score (SF-36 PCS), arm and neck pain numeric rating scale (NRS) scores, American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) motor score, and Nurick grade were combined into a single summary statistic known as the global treatment effect (GTE). Results Overall, 290 patients (riluzole group, 141; placebo group, 149; mean [SD] age, 59 [10.1] years; 161 [56%] male) were included. Riluzole showed a significantly higher probability of global improvement compared with placebo at 1-year follow-up (GTE, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.00-0.16; P = .02). A similar favorable global response was seen at 35 days and 6 months (GTE for both, 0.07; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.15; P = .04), although the results were not statistically significant. Riluzole-treated patients had at least a 54% likelihood of achieving better outcomes at 1 year compared with the placebo group. The ASIA motor score and neck and arm pain NRS combination at 1 year provided the best-fit parsimonious model for detecting a benefit of riluzole (GTE, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.16; P = .007). Conclusions and Relevance In this secondary analysis of the CSM-PROTECT trial using a global outcome technique, riluzole was associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with DCM. The GST offered probability-based results capable of representing diverse outcome scales and should be considered in future studies assessing spine surgery outcomes.

Study Design. Retrospective cohort study of prospectively accrued data. Objective. To evaluate a large, prospective, multicentre dataset of surgically treated degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) cases on the contemporary risk of C5 palsy with surgical approach. Summary of Background Data. The influence of surgical technique on postoperative C5 palsy after decompression for DCM is intensely debated. Comprehensive, covariate-adjusted analyses are needed using contemporary data. Methods. Patients with moderate to severe DCM were prospectively enrolled in the multicenter, randomized, Phase III CSM-Protect clinical trial and underwent either anterior or posterior decompression between Jan 31, 2012 and May 16, 2017. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative C5 palsy, defined as the onset of muscle weakness by at least one grade in manual muscle test at the C5 myotome with slight or absent sensory disruption after cervical surgery. Two comparative cohorts were made based on the anterior or posterior surgical approach. Multivariate hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for C5 palsy. Results. A total of 283 patients were included, and 53.4% underwent posterior decompression. The total incidence of postoperative C5 palsy was 7.4% and was significantly higher in patients who underwent posterior decompression compared with anterior decompression (11.26% vs. 3.03%, P=0.008). After multivariable regression, the posterior approach was independently associated with greater than four times the likelihood of postoperative C5 palsy (P=0.017). Rates of C5 palsy recovery were comparable between the two surgical approaches. Conclusion. The odds of postoperative C5 palsy are significantly higher after posterior decompression compared to anterior decompression for DCM. This may influence surgical decision-making when there is equipoise in deciding between anterior and posterior treatment options for DCM. Level of Evidence. Therapeutic Level—II