Literature DB >> 27061727

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

Jarle Sundseth1,2, Eva Astrid Jacobsen3, Frode Kolstad4, Ruth O Sletteberg3, Oystein P Nygaard5,6,7, Lars Gunnar Johnsen8,9, Are Hugo Pripp10, Hege Andresen5, Oddrun Anita Fredriksli6,7, Erling Myrseth11, John A Zwart3,12.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Heterotopic ossification is a phenomenon in cervical arthroplasty. Previous reports have mainly focused on various semiconstrained devices and only a few publications have focused on ossification around devices that are nonconstrained. The purpose of this study was to assess the occurrence of heterotopic ossification around a nonconstrained cervical device and how it affects clinical outcome 2 years after surgery.
METHODS: Thirty-seven patients were included from a larger cohort of a randomized controlled trial (NORCAT) which compared single-level cervical arthroplasty with fusion. The occurrence of heterotopic ossification was assessed with a CT scan and two neuroradiologists determined its degree. For grading, we used the Mehren/Suchomel classification system (grade 0-4). The patients were divided by level of ossification, low grade (0-2) or high grade (3-4), and clinical outcomes were compared. Self-rated disability for neck and arm pain (Neck Disability Index), health-related quality of life (the Short Form-36 and EuroQol-5D), and pain (the Numeric Rating Scale 11) were used as clinical outcome measures.
RESULTS: Heterotopic ossification was encountered in all patients 2 years after surgery. Complete fusion (grade 4) was found in 16 % of participants, and high-grade ossification (grade 3-4) occurred in 62 %. The remaining patients were classified as having low-grade ossification (grade 2). There were no differences in the clinical outcomes of patients with low- and high-grade ossification.
CONCLUSION: High-grade heterotopic ossification and spontaneous fusion 2 years after surgery were seen in a significant number of patients. However, the degree of ossification did not influence the clinical outcome.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Arthroplasty; Cervical; Fusion; Heterotopic ossification; Outcome

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27061727     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4549-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  36 in total

1.  Difference in occurrence of heterotopic ossification according to prosthesis type in the cervical artificial disc replacement.

Authors:  Seong Yi; Keung Nyun Kim; Moon Sul Yang; Joong Won Yang; Hoon Kim; Yoon Ha; Do Heum Yoon; Hyun Chul Shin
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  Ung-Kyu Chang; Daniel H Kim; Max C Lee; Rafer Willenberg; Se-Hoon Kim; Jesse Lim
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2007-07

3.  Short form 36 (SF-36) health survey: normative data from the general Norwegian population.

Authors:  J H Loge; S Kaasa
Journal:  Scand J Soc Med       Date:  1998-12

4.  Mid-term follow-up of clinical and radiologic outcomes in cervical total disk replacement (Mobi-C): incidence of heterotopic ossification and risk factors.

Authors:  Jin Hoon Park; Seung Chul Rhim; Sung Woo Roh
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2013-05

5.  Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study.

Authors:  S L Weinhoffer; R D Guyer; M Herbert; S L Griffith
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 6.  Multi-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus single-level CDA for the treatment of cervical disc diseases: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hua Zhao; Lei Cheng; Yong Hou; Yi Liu; Ben Liu; Jyoti Joshi Mundra; Lin Nie
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Heterotopic ossification after surface replacement arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty: a randomized study.

Authors:  Krishna Reddi Boddu Siva Rama; Pascal-André Vendittoli; Muthu Ganapathi; Rene Borgmann; Alain Roy; Martin Lavigne
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2008-04-11       Impact factor: 4.757

8.  A Comparison of Zero-Profile Devices and Artificial Cervical Disks in Patients With 2 Noncontiguous Levels of Cervical Spondylosis.

Authors:  Sun Qizhi; Sun Lei; Li Peijia; Zhao Hanping; Hu Hongwei; Chen Junsheng; Li Jianmin
Journal:  Clin Spine Surg       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 1.876

Review 9.  Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion?

Authors:  Alan S Hilibrand; Matthew Robbins
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.166

10.  Update on cervical disc arthroplasty: where are we and where are we going?

Authors:  Jorge J Jaramillo-de la Torre; Jonathan N Grauer; James J Yue
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2008-06
View more
  12 in total

1.  The Norwegian Cervical Arthroplasty Trial (NORCAT): 2-year clinical outcome after single-level cervical arthroplasty versus fusion-a prospective, single-blinded, randomized, controlled multicenter study.

Authors:  Jarle Sundseth; Oddrun Anita Fredriksli; Frode Kolstad; Lars Gunnar Johnsen; Are Hugo Pripp; Hege Andresen; Erling Myrseth; Kay Müller; Øystein P Nygaard; John-Anker Zwart
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-12-23       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 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

4.  Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Heterotopic Ossification After Cervical Total Disc Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Nicholas Hui; Kevin Phan; Jack Kerferd; Meiyi Lee; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2019-10-13

5.  Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement Versus Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2019-02-19

Review 6.  Adverse Events Following Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jordan C Xu; Chandni Goel; Michael F Shriver; Joseph E Tanenbaum; Michael P Steinmetz; Edward C Benzel; Thomas E Mroz
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-08-15

Review 7.  Are Controversial Issues in Cervical Total Disc Replacement Resolved or Unresolved?: A Review of Literature and Recent Updates.

Authors:  Chun-Kun Park; Kyeong-Sik Ryu
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2018-02-07

8.  Multilevel cervical arthroplasty-clinical and radiological outcomes.

Authors:  Rui Reinas; Djamel Kitumba; Leopoldina Pereira; António M Baptista; Óscar L Alves
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-03

Review 9.  The Survey of Cells Responsible for Heterotopic Ossification Development in Skeletal Muscles-Human and Mouse Models.

Authors:  Łukasz Pulik; Bartosz Mierzejewski; Maria A Ciemerych; Edyta Brzóska; Paweł Łęgosz
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 6.600

10.  Comparing Heterotopic Ossification in Two Cervical Disc Prostheses.

Authors:  Xiaoyu Yang; Roland Donk; Ronald H M A Bartels; Mark P Arts; Bart Depreitere; Carmen L A Vleggeert-Lankamp
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 3.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.