Literature DB >> 17200314

Prevalence of heterotopic ossification following total disc replacement. A prospective, randomized study of two hundred and seventy-six patients.

P Justin Tortolani1, Bryan W Cunningham, Mmech Eng, Paul C McAfee, Gwen A Holsapple, Karen A Adams.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite reports of good clinical outcomes in patients treated with lumbar and cervical disc replacements, varying degrees of heterotopic bone have been observed around these devices. The purposes of the present study were to determine the prevalence of heterotopic ossification following lumbar disc replacement and to investigate whether heterotopic ossification results in loss of motion or negatively affects clinical outcome.
METHODS: All preoperative and postoperative radiographs from a completed prospective, randomized, United States Food and Drug Administration-regulated trial comparing replacement with the CHARITE Artificial Disc with anterior interbody arthrodesis were analyzed. In each of 276 patients treated with disc replacement, heterotopic ossification was categorized with use of a validated 5-point radiographic classification system both preoperatively and at all protocol-specified follow-up intervals to two years. The range of motion on flexion and extension radiographs made preoperatively was compared with that on radiographs made two years postoperatively, and the motion was correlated with the presence or absence of heterotopic ossification. Similarly, validated clinical outcome measures were correlated with the presence or absence of heterotopic ossification at two years.
RESULTS: The prevalence of heterotopic ossification in the 276 consecutive patients treated with lumbar disc replacement with the CHARITE Artificial Disc was 4.3%. There were four cases of Class-I heterotopic ossification and eight cases of Class-II heterotopic ossification. In five of the twelve patients, heterotopic bone was visible as early as six weeks postoperatively, and eleven of the twelve patients had evidence of heterotopic ossification by three months postoperatively. The postoperative range of motion exceeded the preoperative range in all of the patients with heterotopic ossification. With the numbers available, no difference in either the range of motion or the clinical outcome at twenty-four months postoperatively was found between the patients who had and those who did not have heterotopic ossification.
CONCLUSIONS: Heterotopic ossification is infrequent in patients treated with the CHARITE Artificial Disc, and it does not impact the range of motion or clinical outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17200314     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00432

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  14 in total

Review 1.  Prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jian Chen; Xinwei Wang; Wanshan Bai; Xiaolong Shen; Wen Yuan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Design concepts in lumbar total disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Fabio Galbusera; Chiara M Bellini; Thomas Zweig; Stephen Ferguson; Manuela T Raimondi; Claudio Lamartina; Marco Brayda-Bruno; Maurizio Fornari
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-10-23       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Solid fusion after lumbosacral arthroplasty.

Authors:  Sang-Hoon Jang; Ho-Yeon Lee; Ji-Young Cho; Sang-Ho Lee
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2013-07-18

4.  Higher reoperation rate following cervical disc replacement in a retrospective, long-term comparative study of 715 patients.

Authors:  Martin Skeppholm; Thomas Henriques; Tycho Tullberg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Heterotopic ossification following lumbar total disc replacement.

Authors:  Se-Jun Park; Kyung-Jung Kang; Seong-Kee Shin; Sung-Soo Chung; Chong-Suh Lee
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-07-21       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Lumbar total disc replacement by less invasive lateral approach: a report of results from two centers in the US IDE clinical trial of the XL TDR® device.

Authors:  Antoine G Tohmeh; William D Smith
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-21       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  [Current short- and long-term results of lumbar disc replacement : update 2008].

Authors:  B Wiedenhöfer; V Ewerbeck; A J Suda; C Carstens
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 0.955

8.  Comparison of single-level L4-L5 versus L5-S1 lumbar disc replacement: results and prognostic factors.

Authors:  Riccardo Sinigaglia; Albert Bundy; Sandro Costantini; Ugo Nena; Francesco Finocchiaro; Daniele A Fabris Monterumici
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-29       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Five-year results of lumbar disc prostheses in the SWISSspine registry.

Authors:  Emin Aghayev; Christian Etter; Christian Bärlocher; Friedrich Sgier; Philippe Otten; Paul Heini; Oliver Hausmann; Gianluca Maestretti; Martin Baur; François Porchet; Thomas M Markwalder; Stefan Schären; Michal Neukamp; Christoph Röder
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-06-20       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Ossifications in Albright Hereditary Osteodystrophy: Role of Genotype, Inheritance, Sex, Age, Hormonal Status, and BMI.

Authors:  Parissa Salemi; Julie M Skalamera Olson; Lauren E Dickson; Emily L Germain-Lee
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 5.958

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.