Osteopathy in the Early Diagnosis and Management of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: National Survey

BackgroundDegenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common and disabling neurodegenerative condition. Surgical decompression is the only evidence-based treatment to halt disease progression; however, diagnosis and access to timely treatment are often delayed, which contribute to significant disability and dependence. Supporting early diagnosis and access to timely treatment is a critical priority. Exploring these challenges, Myelopathy.org has observed that people with DCM may seek osteopathy care for their symptoms, both before and after diagnosis. ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe the current interaction between osteopaths and people with DCM and understand how this may be targeted to enhance the DCM diagnostic pathway. MethodsRegistered osteopaths in the United Kingdom completed a web-based survey hosted by the Institute of Osteopathy, as part of their institute’s 2021 census. Responses were collected from February to May 2021. Demographic information about the respondents was captured, including age, gender, and ethnicity. Professional information captured included the year of qualification; region of practice; type of practice; and number of undiagnosed, operated diagnosed, and unoperated diagnosed DCM cases encountered per year. The completion of the survey was voluntary; however, a prize draw incentive was offered to participants. ResultsThe demographics were heterogenous for the 547 practitioners who completed the survey. There was representation from a wide range of demographic groups, including the level of experience, gender, age, and the region of United Kingdom. At least 68.9% (377/547) of osteopaths reported encounters with DCM each year. Osteopaths most frequently encountered patients with undiagnosed DCM, with a mean of 3 patient encounters per year. This compares to 2 encounters per year with patients with diagnosed DCM. The level of practitioner experience was positively correlated with the detection of undiagnosed DCM (P<.005). The influence of practitioner experience was corroborated by a subgroup analysis looking at the relationship between practitioner age on the detection of undiagnosed DCM. Osteopaths older than 54 years encountered an average of 4.2 cases per year, whereas those younger than 35 years detected 2.9 cases per year. Osteopaths in private clinics reported encounters with a greater mean number (4.4) of undiagnosed DCM cases per year than osteopaths in other clinic types (3.0). ConclusionsOsteopaths reported that they frequently consult people with DCM, including those suspected to have undiagnosed or presurgical DCM. Given this concentrated presentation of early DCM and a workforce professionally trained to examine musculoskeletal disease, osteopaths could have an important role in accelerating access to timely treatment. We included a decision support tool and specialist referral template as a tool to support onward care

Management of mild degenerative cervical myelopathy and asymptomatic spinal cord compression: an international survey

Acknowledgements: This research aligns with the AO Spine RECODE-DCM top research priority Natural History selected by people living and working with DCM. For further information on how this process was conducted, why this question was prioritised, and global updates on currently aligned research, please visit aospine.org/recode/natural history.Study design: Cross-sectional survey. Objective: Currently there is limited evidence and guidance on the management of mild degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and asymptomatic spinal cord compression (ASCC). Anecdotal evidence suggest variance in clinical practice. The objectives of this study were to assess current practice and to quantify the variability in clinical practice. Methods: Spinal surgeons and some additional health professionals completed a web-based survey distributed by email to members of AO Spine and the Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) North American Society. Questions captured experience with DCM, frequency of DCM patient encounters, and standard of practice in the assessment of DCM. Further questions assessed the definition and management of mild DCM, and the management of ASCC. Results: A total of 699 respondents, mostly surgeons, completed the survey. Every world region was represented in the responses. Half (50.1%, n = 359) had greater than 10 years of professional experience with DCM. For mild DCM, standardised follow-up for non-operative patients was reported by 488 respondents (69.5%). Follow-up included a heterogeneous mix of investigations, most often at 6-month intervals (32.9%, n = 158). There was some inconsistency regarding which clinical features would cause a surgeon to counsel a patient towards surgery. Practice for ASCC aligned closely with mild DCM. Finally, there were some contradictory definitions of mild DCM provided in the form of free text. Conclusions: Professionals typically offer outpatient follow up for patients with mild DCM and/or asymptomatic ASCC. However, what this constitutes varies widely. Further research is needed to define best practice and support patient care

Management of mild degenerative cervical myelopathy and asymptomatic spinal cord compression: an international survey

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: Currently there is limited evidence and guidance on the management of mild degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and asymptomatic spinal cord compression (ASCC). Anecdotal evidence suggest variance in clinical practice. The objectives of this study were to assess current practice and to quantify the variability in clinical practice. METHODS: Spinal surgeons and some additional health professionals completed a web-based survey distributed by email to members of AO Spine and the Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) North American Society. Questions captured experience with DCM, frequency of DCM patient encounters, and standard of practice in the assessment of DCM. Further questions assessed the definition and management of mild DCM, and the management of ASCC. RESULTS: A total of 699 respondents, mostly surgeons, completed the survey. Every world region was represented in the responses. Half (50.1%, n = 359) had greater than 10 years of professional experience with DCM. For mild DCM, standardised follow-up for non-operative patients was reported by 488 respondents (69.5%). Follow-up included a heterogeneous mix of investigations, most often at 6-month intervals (32.9%, n = 158). There was some inconsistency regarding which clinical features would cause a surgeon to counsel a patient towards surgery. Practice for ASCC aligned closely with mild DCM. Finally, there were some contradictory definitions of mild DCM provided in the form of free text. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals typically offer outpatient follow up for patients with mild DCM and/or asymptomatic ASCC. However, what this constitutes varies widely. Further research is needed to define best practice and support patient care

Management of mild degenerative cervical myelopathy and asymptomatic spinal cord compression: an international survey.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: Currently there is limited evidence and guidance on the management of mild degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and asymptomatic spinal cord compression (ASCC). Anecdotal evidence suggest variance in clinical practice. The objectives of this study were to assess current practice and to quantify the variability in clinical practice. METHODS: Spinal surgeons and some additional health professionals completed a web-based survey distributed by email to members of AO Spine and the Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) North American Society. Questions captured experience with DCM, frequency of DCM patient encounters, and standard of practice in the assessment of DCM. Further questions assessed the definition and management of mild DCM, and the management of ASCC. RESULTS: A total of 699 respondents, mostly surgeons, completed the survey. Every world region was represented in the responses. Half (50.1%, n = 359) had greater than 10 years of professional experience with DCM. For mild DCM, standardised follow-up for non-operative patients was reported by 488 respondents (69.5%). Follow-up included a heterogeneous mix of investigations, most often at 6-month intervals (32.9%, n = 158). There was some inconsistency regarding which clinical features would cause a surgeon to counsel a patient towards surgery. Practice for ASCC aligned closely with mild DCM. Finally, there were some contradictory definitions of mild DCM provided in the form of free text. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals typically offer outpatient follow up for patients with mild DCM and/or asymptomatic ASCC. However, what this constitutes varies widely. Further research is needed to define best practice and support patient care