The European Myelopathy Score

Herdmann, J.; Linzbach, M.; Krzan, M.; Dvořák, J; Bock, W. J.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-78801-7_43

Cited by 52 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The frequency of manifestation of the symptoms corresponds with the frequency described by other authors [6,12,15,17], the data also confirms that funicular and radicular symptoms are usually combined in CSM [9,10,18]. Postoperatively 51.9% of the patients showed improvement of the clinical symptoms.…”

Section: Clinical Datasupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Furthermore, it is widely known that symptoms of the cervical myelopathy occur more often in patients with steep or kyphotic alignment of the cervical spine [2,10,11,16,18,20,21,[23][24][25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is assessed by the following formula [10] Recovery -rate ¼ postoperative score À preoperative score ð Þ total score À preoperative score ð Þ : Table 8 shows the recovery-rates of the scores in comparison with the number of patients showing improved score-results.…”

Section: Recovery-ratementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ability to compare various results that measure clinical deficits and outcome is a necessity for successful worldwide discussion about the disease and its treatment. The study presented here compares Nurick-score [21,22], Japanese orthopaedic association score (JOAscore) [34], Cooper-myelopathy-scale (CMS) [4], Proloscore [26] and European-myelopathy-score (EMS) [10] and analyses how they reflect outcome, clinical and diagnostic data in patients with cervical myelopathy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Analysis of five specific scores for cervical spondylogenic myelopathy

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to compare various results that measure clinical deficits and outcome is a necessity for successful worldwide discussion about cervical spondylogenic myelopathy (CSM) and its treatment. There is hardly any information in literature how to value and compare outcome assessed by different scores. In a retrospective study we objectively evaluated the Nurick-score, Japanese-orthopaedic-association-score (JOA-Score), Cooper-myelopathyscale (CMS), Prolo-score and European-myelopathy-score (EMS) using the data of 43 patients, all of whom showed clinical and morphological signs of CSM and underwent operative decompression. The scores were assessed pre-and postoperatively. The correlation between the scoreresults, anamnesis, clinical and diagnostic data was investigated. All the scores show a statistically significant correlation and measure postoperative improvement. With exception of the Prolo-score all scores reflect clinical deficits of CSM. The Prolo-score rates the severity of CSM on the state of the economic situation above clinical symptoms. The main differences of the scores are shown in the number of patients showing postoperative improvement, varying between 33% (Nurick-score) and 81% (JOA-score). The recovery-rates, as a measure of the cumulative improvement of all the symptoms, show less variation (23-37%). The differences of the recovery-rate were only statistically significant between JOA-score, Nurick-score and EMS (P \ 0.05), whereas all the other scores showed no significant differences. To assess the postoperative successes, the evaluation of the recovery-rate is essential. There is no significant difference in the recovery-rate amongst the majority of the scores, which allows a good comparison of the results from different studies. Nevertheless, it is always important to differentiate the therapy results of CSM published worldwide.

show abstract

Section: Clinical Datasupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Recovery-ratementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Analysis of five specific scores for cervical spondylogenic myelopathy

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[19][20][21][22][23][24] These scores are commonly referenced in the literature and are most extensively used in the research setting. They are rarely employed in clinical practice and their utility is limited by the fact that they are largely based on the ability of patients to participate in activities of daily living.…”

Section: Symptomsmentioning

confidence: 99%