Abstract
Background Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is the most common cause of nontraumatic spinal cord dysfunction in adults. For mild disease, guidelines recommend shared decision-making between surgery and structured rehabilitation based on clinical equipoise, yet no comparative effectiveness study has reported outcomes in this population. Whether a randomized trial is feasible is unknown.
Methods We conducted two cross-sectional surveys between December 2025 and July 2026: one of patients with surgeon-confirmed CSM recruited from academic outpatient spine clinics, and one of practicing neurosurgical and orthopedic spine surgeons. Respondents rated willingness to participate in (1) a randomized trial of early surgery versus observation and (2) a prospective observational study in which treatment was patient selected. Responses of likely or very likely were classified as willing. Groups were compared using Fisher exact tests, designs within respondents using exact McNemar tests, and predictors using univariable logistic regression.
Results Fifty-four patients and 52 surgeons completed the surveys. Patients were markedly less willing than surgeons to accept randomization (15 of 54, 27.8% versus 44 of 52, 84.6%; p < 0.001). Both groups accepted the observational design (39 of 54, 72.2% versus 51 of 52, 98.1%; p < 0.001), and 26 of 39 patients unwilling to be randomized were willing to enroll in an observational study (p < 0.001). Willingness to be randomized did not differ across mJOA severity (mild 30.4%, moderate 25.0%, severe 27.3%; p = 0.93). Among patients declining randomization, 85.2% cited a wish to retain control over treatment, whereas fear of surgery was cited by one respondent. Forty-five surgeons (86.5%) considered both surgery and observation reasonable, and preference was divided (46.2% favoring early surgery, 48.1% favoring initial observation).
Conclusions Surgeons report equipoise and high willingness to randomize, but most patients would decline random allocation, citing a wish to retain treatment choice rather than fear or distrust. A prospective observational study appears the more feasible route to comparative evidence in mild CSM. Feasibility assessments restricted to clinicians may substantially overestimate attainable accrual.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Institutional Review Board of Washington University in St. Louis gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
