Literature DB >> 23541453

The predisposing factors for the heterotopic ossification after cervical artificial disc replacement.

Seong Yi1, Dong Ah Shin, Keung Nyun Kim, Gwihyun Choi, Hyun Chul Shin, Keun Su Kim, Do Heum Yoon.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Heterotopic ossification (HO) is defined as a formation of bone outside the skeletal system. The reported HO occurrence rate in cervical artificial disc replacement (ADR) is unexpectedly high and is known to vary. However, the predisposing factors for HO in cervical ADR have not yet been elucidated.
PURPOSE: Investigation of the predisposing factors of HO in cervical arthroplasty and the relationship between degeneration of the cervical spine and HO occurrence. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective study to discover predisposing factors of HO in cervical arthroplasty. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 170 patients who underwent cervical ADR were enrolled including full follow-up clinical and radiologic data. OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiologic outcomes were assessed by identification of HOs according to McAfee's classifications.
METHODS: This study enrolled a total of 170 patients who underwent cervical ADR. Pre-existing degenerative change included anterior or posterior osteophytes, ossification of the anterior longitudinal ligament, posterior longitudinal ligament, or ligamentum nuchae. The relationships between basic patient data, pre-existing degenerative change, and HO were investigated using linear logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: Among all 170 patients, HO was found in 69 patients (40.6%). Among the postulated predisposing factors, only male gender and artificial disc device type were shown to be statistically significant. Unexpectedly, preoperative degenerative changes in the cervical spine exerted no significant influence on the occurrence of HOs. The odds ratio of male gender compared with female gender was 2.117. With regard to device type, the odds ratios of Mobi-C (LDR medical, Troyes, France) and ProDisc-C (Synthes, Inc., West Chester, PA, USA) were 5.262 and 7.449, respectively, compared with the Bryan disc.
CONCLUSIONS: Definite differences in occurrence rate according to the gender of patients and the prosthesis type were identified in this study. Moreover, factors indefinably expected to influence HO in the past were not shown to be risk factors thereof, the results of which may be meaningful to future studies.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical artificial disc replacement; Heterotopic ossification; Pre-existing degeneration; Predisposing factor

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23541453     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.02.036

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  33 in total

1.  Bone loss of the superior adjacent vertebral body immediately posterior to the anterior flange of Bryan cervical disc.

Authors:  Sang Hyun Kim; Young Sun Chung; Alexander E Ropper; Kyung Hoon Min; Tae Keun Ahn; Keun Soo Won; Dong Ah Shin; In Bo Han
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-19       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Unintended fusion in cervical artificial disk replacement: a prospective study on heterotopic ossification, progression, and clinical outcome, with 5-year follow-up.

Authors:  Catarina Marques; Anna MacDowall; Martin Skeppholm; Nuno Canto Moreira; Claes Olerud
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Heterotopic ossification and clinical outcome in nonconstrained cervical arthroplasty.

Authors:  Sung Bae Park; Young Jun Jin; Ki-Jeong Kim
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-12

4.  Heterotopic ossification is related to change in disc space angle after Prestige-LP cervical disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Lingyun Hu; Jianying Zhang; Hao Liu; Yang Meng; Yi Yang; Guangzhou Li; Chen Ding; Beiyu Wang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-07-05       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Complications of cervical total disc replacement and their associations with heterotopic ossification: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nicholas Hui; Kevin Phan; Hoi Man Kevin Cheng; Yueh-Hsin Lin; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-04-11       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Outcomes of the Bryan cervical disc replacement: fifteen year follow-up.

Authors:  Vincent Pointillart; Jean-Etienne Castelain; Pierre Coudert; Derek Thomas Cawley; Olivier Gille; Jean-Marc Vital
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-12-29       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Single-level cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C artificial disc: 10-year follow-up results in one centre.

Authors:  Yanbin Zhao; Feifei Zhou; Yu Sun; Shengfa Pan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  Cervical disc replacement surgery: indications, technique, and technical pearls.

Authors:  Dante Leven; Joshua Meaike; Kris Radcliff; Sheeraz Qureshi
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

9.  Heterotopic ossification and clinical outcome in nonconstrained cervical arthroplasty 2 years after surgery: the Norwegian Cervical Arthroplasty Trial (NORCAT).

Authors:  Jarle Sundseth; Eva Astrid Jacobsen; Frode Kolstad; Ruth O Sletteberg; Oystein P Nygaard; Lars Gunnar Johnsen; Are Hugo Pripp; Hege Andresen; Oddrun Anita Fredriksli; Erling Myrseth; John A Zwart
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-04-09       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  Polyurethane on titanium unconstrained disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical disc disease: a review of level I-II randomized clinical trials including clinical outcomes.

Authors:  María Aragonés; Eduardo Hevia; Carlos Barrios
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-09-12       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.