PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Revista Chilena de Ortopedia y Traumatología 2021; 62(03): e174-e179
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740171
Artículo Original | Original Article

Prevalence of Heterotopic Ossification after Cervical Disk Arthroplasty at 5 Years

Artikel in mehreren Sprachen: español | English
Ivan A. Stepanov 
1   Departamento de Cirugía General y Anestesiología, Irkutsk State Medical University, Irkutsk, Russia
,
Vladimir A. Beloborodov
1   Departamento de Cirugía General y Anestesiología, Irkutsk State Medical University, Irkutsk, Russia
› Institutsangaben Funding The authors have no sources of funding to declare.
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Introduction In recent years, cervical disk arthroplasty (CDA) has become widely used in patients as a substitute to anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, heterotopic ossification (HO) and spontaneous fusion after CDA have been reported, and maintenance of motion following arthroplasty can be hindered by the development of HO.

Materials and Methods The CDA procedure with Activ C and M6-C prostheses was performed on 127 patients. The mean follow-up time was of 58.4 months, ranging from 51 to 66 months.

Results Grade-1 ossifications were present in 11 (8.6%) levels. A total of 45 (35.4%) segments showed grade-2 HO. Cases of HO that led to restrictions in the range of motion were present in 13 (10.2%) patients. Fives year postoperatively, there were only 9 (7.0%) patients with grade-4 ossifications in the M6-C artificial disk prosthesis group. In the survival analysis after HO occurrence, the median survival of the patients was of 28.3 ±  5.6 months. The Activ C artificial disk prosthesis group had a statistically longer survival (49.5 ±  7.8 months) than the M6-C disk group.

Conclusion In the present study, 61.4% of the patients developed HO at a mean follow-up period of 58.4 months. In the survival analysis after HO occurrence, the median survival of the patients was of 28.3 ±  5.6 months. The Activ C artificial disk prosthesis group had a statistically longer survival (49.5 ±  7.8 months) than the M6-C disk group.

Keywords

anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion - cervical disk arthroplasty - heterotopic ossification - prevalence - activ C prosthesis - M6-C prosthesis

Ethical Approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained by the ethics committee at Irkutsk State Medical University (2013–51/5).




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 03. Juni 2020

Angenommen: 06. August 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
22. Dezember 2021

© 2021. Sociedad Chilena de Ortopedia y Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referencias

  • 1 Ofluoglu AE, Erdogan U, Aydogan M, Cevik OM, Ofluoglu O. Anterior cervical fusion with interbody cage containing beta-tricalcium phosphate: Clinical and radiological results. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2017; 51 (03) 197-200 DOI: 10.1016/j.aott.2017.03.001.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wang T, Wang H, Liu S, An HD, Liu H, Ding WY. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion in multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95 (49) e5437 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000012618.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Byvaltsev VA, Stepanov IA, Riew DK. Mid-term to long-term outcomes after total cervical disk arthroplasty compared with Anterior diskectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Spine Surg 2020; 33 (05) 192-200 DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000929.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Skeppholm M, Svedmark P, Noz ME, Maguire Jr GQ, Olivecrona H, Olerud C. Evaluation of mobility and stability in the Discover artificial disc: an in vivo motion study using high-accuracy 3D CT data. J Neurosurg Spine 2015; 23 (03) 383-389 DOI: 10.3171/2014.12.spine14813.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gornet MF, Lanman TH, Burkus JK. et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, at 2 levels: results of a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial at 24 months. J Neurosurg Spine 2017; 26 (06) 653-667 DOI: 10.3171/2016.10.spine16264.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rožanković M, Marasanov SM, Vukić M. Cervical Disk Replacement With Discover Versus Fusion in a Single-Level Cervical Disk Disease: A Prospective Single-Center Randomized Trial With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up. Clin Spine Surg 2017; 30 (05) E515-E522 DOI: 10.1097/bsd.0000000000000170.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sundseth J, Fredriksli OA, Kolstad F. et al; NORCAT study group. 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. Eur Spine J 2017; 26 (04) 1225-1235 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4922-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Zeng J, Liu H, Chen H. et al. Comparison of Heterotopic Ossification After Fixed- and Mobile-Core Cervical Disc Arthroplasty. World Neurosurg 2018; 120: e1319-e1324 DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.09.075.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Arnold PM, Anderson KK, Selim A, Dryer RF, Kenneth Burkus J. Heterotopic ossification following single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results from the prospective, multicenter, historically controlled trial comparing allograft to an optimized dose of rhBMP-2. J Neurosurg Spine 2016; 25 (03) 292-302 DOI: 10.3171/2016.1.spine15798.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J, Williams E, Yu-Yahiro J. Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16 (04) 384-389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Williams JR. The Declaration of Helsinki and public health. Bull World Health Organ 2008; 86 (08) 650-652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC. et al. Heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc replacement: determination by CT and effects on clinical outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 14 (04) 457-465 DOI: 10.3171/2010.11.spine10444.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F. et al. Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine 2006; 31 (24) 2802-2806 DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000245852.70594.d5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lee SE, Jahng TA, Kim HJ. Correlation between cervical lordosis and adjacent segment pathology after anterior cervical spinal surgery. Eur Spine J 2015; 24 (12) 2899-2909 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-4132-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Leung C, Casey AT, Goffin J. et al. Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery 2005; 57 (04) 759-763 , discussion 759–763 DOI: 10.1093/neurosurgery/57.4.759.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Yang H, Lu X, Yuan W, Wang X, Chen D, Zhao D. Artificial disk replacement in the treatment of degenerative cervical disk disorder: a 30-year follow-up study. Spine 2014; 39 (19) 1564-1571 DOI: 10.1097/brs.0000000000000484.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Jin YJ, Park SB, Kim MJ, Kim K-J, Kim H-J. An analysis of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc arthroplasty: a novel morphologic classification of an ossified mass. Spine J 2013; 13 (04) 408-420 DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.11.048.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Nunley PD, Cavanaugh DA, Kerr III EJ. et al. Heterotopic Ossification After Cervical Total Disc Replacement at 7 Years-Prevalence, Progression, Clinical Implications, and Risk Factors. Int J Spine Surg 2018; 12 (03) 352-361 DOI: 10.14444/5041.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Yi S, Kim KN, Yang MS. et al. Difference in occurrence of heterotopic ossification according to prosthesis type in the cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine 2010; 35 (16) 1556-1561 DOI: 10.1097/brs.0b013e3181c6526b.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Park JH, Rhim SC, Roh SW. Mid-term follow-up of clinical and radiologic outcomes in cervical total disk replacement (Mobi-C): incidence of heterotopic ossification and risk factors. J Spinal Disord Tech 2013; 26 (03) 141-145 DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31823ba071.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sodemann B, Persson PE, Nilsson OS. Prevention of heterotopic ossification by nonsteroid antiinflammatory drugs after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; (237) 158-163
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC. et al. Postoperative nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and the prevention of heterotopic ossification after cervical arthroplasty: analysis using CT and a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2015; 22 (05) 447-453 DOI: 10.3171/2014.10.spine14333.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Yi S, Shin DA, Kim KN. et al. The predisposing factors for the heterotopic ossification after cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J 2013; 13 (09) 1048-1054 DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.02.036.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar