Heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc replacement: determination by CT and effects on clinical outcomes

Clinical article

Restricted access

Object

Heterotopic ossification (HO) after cervical total disc replacement (TDR) has been reported to impede artificial disc motion. In all previously reported cases of HO, assessment was based on plain radiographs. The authors hypothesized that CT scan is a more sensitive and accurate detector. The aims of this study were to assess the actual incidence of HO and its effect on outcome in a cohort of patients undergoing cervical TDR with the Bryan disc and to compare HO detection by means of plain radiographs and CT.

Methods

The authors retrospectively assessed data from medical records, radiological studies, and clinical evaluations of patients who underwent 1- or 2-level cervical TDR with the Bryan disc and were followed up for more than 12 months. The presence and grading of HO according to the McAfee classification were assessed by CT scan, and these findings were compared with findings on plain radiographs. Thirty-six patients (mean age 46.61 ± 7.24 years; range 29–60 years; 21 men and 15 women) who underwent Bryan TDR at 52 levels were included in the study. The mean duration of CT follow-up was 19.03 ± 4.64 months; the mean duration of clinical follow-up was 26.78 ± 7.20 months.

Results

On the basis of CT, HO was identified in 18 (50%) of 36 patients and 25 (48.1%) of 52 levels treated. Grade 1 HO was present in 9 of the levels treated (17.3%), Grade 2 in 13 levels (25.0%), Grade 3 in 2 levels (3.8%), and Grade 4 in 1 level (1.9%). Nineteen (76%) of the 25 affected levels were in patients who had undergone 2-level TDR. There was no significant association with patient sex or disc pathology. There was a tendency for HO development among older patients, but this finding was not statistically significant (mean age 48.8 ± 6.8 in patients with HO vs 44.4 ± 7.2 in those without HO, p = 0.065). Although HO was found in 25 levels, 96.2% of the treated levels (50 of 52) had segmental range of motion on dynamic (flexion and extension) radiographs. The concordance between HO grading by CT and radiography was high, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.822 (lower limit of 95% CI: 0.710, p < 0.001). Patients who had HO had the same clinical success rate as those who did not (94.4% vs 94.4%, p = 1.00). The visual analog scale scores for neck and arm pain were significantly improved in both the HO and the non-HO group.

Conclusions

The rate of HO detected by CT scan in this cohort of patients undergoing cervical TDR with a Bryan disc was 48.1% per level treated and 50% per patient with minimal limitation of segmental motion (96.2% of levels remained mobile), but plain radiograph is an acceptable detection tool. Two-level surgery has a higher risk of HO, although development of HO does not affect clinical outcome.

Abbreviations used in this paper: ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; ASD = adjacent-segment disease; HO = heterotopic ossification; NSAID = nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug; TDR = total disc replacement; VAS = visual analog scale.

Article Information

Address correspondence to: Jau-Ching Wu, M.D., Neural Regeneration Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Room 509, 17F, No. 201, Shih-Pai Road, Sec. 2, Beitou, Taipei 11217, Taiwan. email: jauching@gmail.com.

Please include this information when citing this paper: published online February 4, 2011; DOI: 10.3171/2010.11.SPINE10444.

© AANS, except where prohibited by US copyright law.

Headings

Figures

  • View in gallery

    Bar graph showing distribution of treated levels and presence of HO by level.

  • View in gallery

    Mean VAS scores for neck and arm pain. Error bars represent SDs. Asterisk represents significant difference compared with preoperative level for both the HO and the non-HO groups (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). There were no significant between-group differences at 12 and 24 months after surgery.

  • View in gallery

    Plain radiographs and CT images obtained in a 59-year-old female patient. A and B: Preoperative anterior-posterior (A) and neutral lateral (B) radiographs showing a normal cervical lordotic curve and alignment. C and D: Postoperative lateral extension (C) and flexion (D) radiographs demonstrating Grade 4 HO at the C4–5 level (white arrow) with loss of segmental mobility and Grade 2 HO at the C5–6 level (black arrowhead) with preserved segmental mobility. E and F: Right (E) and left (F) sides of the sagittal reformatted CT imaging study obtained 18 months after C4–5 and C5–6 TDR. G and H: The axial CT images at the C4–5 (G) and C5–6 (H) levels confirming the ventral and dorsal bridging ossification, HO (Grade 4), and showing the dorsal Grade 2 HO (black arrow) at the C5–6 level, which was not seen on plain radiographs.

  • View in gallery

    Dynamic plain radiographs and CT scans obtained in a 40-year-old female patient 20 months after C5–6 and C6–7 TDR. A and B: Lateral extension (A) and flexion (B) radiographs showing loss of segmental mobility at the C6–7 level and Grade 2 HO (black arrows). C–E: Sagittal (C) and coronal (D) reformatted CT scan and axial CT scan (E) demonstrating arthrodesis in the left C6–7 facet (white arrows) with immobilization of the C6–7 segment.

References

1

Ahrengart LLindgren U: Heterotopic bone after hip arthroplasty. Defining the patient at risk. Clin Orthop Relat Res 293:1531591993

2

Bartels RHDonk R: Fusion around cervical disc prosthesis: case report. Neurosurgery 57:E1942005

3

Beaurain JBernard PDufour TFuentes JMHovorka IHuppert J: Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C) with up to 2 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J 18:8418502009

4

Bohlman HHEmery SEGoodfellow DBJones PK: Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:129813071993

5

Bose B: Anterior cervical fusion using Caspar plating: analysis of results and review of the literature. Surg Neurol 49:25311998

6

Brooker AFBowerman JWRobinson RARiley LH Jr: Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55:162916321973

7

Eck JCHumphreys SCLim THJeong STKim JGHodges SD: Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 27:243124342002

8

Fuller DAKirkpatrick JSEmery SEWilber RGDavy DT: A kinematic study of the cervical spine before and after segmental arthrodesis. Spine 23:164916561998

9

Goffin Jvan Loon JVan Calenbergh FPlets C: Long-term results after anterior cervical fusion and osteosynthetic stabilization for fractures and/or dislocations of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord 8:5005081995

10

Gore DRSepic SB: Anterior cervical fusion for degenerated or protruded discs. A review of one hundred forty-six patients. Spine 9:6676711984

11

Heidecke VBurkert WBrucke MRainov NG: Intervertebral disc replacement for cervical degenerative disease—clinical results and functional outcome at two years in patients implanted with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 150:4534592008

12

Heller JGSasso RCPapadopoulos SMAnderson PAFessler RGHacker RJ: Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine 34:1011072009

13

Hilibrand ASYoo JUCarlson GDBohlman HH: The success of anterior cervical arthrodesis adjacent to a previous fusion. Spine 22:157415791997

14

Kaiser MGHaid RW JrSubach BRBarnes BRodts GE Jr: Anterior cervical plating enhances arthrodesis after discectomy and fusion with cortical allograft. Neurosurgery 50:2292382002

15

Leung CCasey ATGoffin JKehr PLiebig KLind B: Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery 57:7597632005

16

Maiman DJKumaresan SYoganandan NPintar FA: Biomechanical effect of anterior cervical spine fusion on adjacent segments. Biomed Mater Eng 9:27381999

17

Matsunaga SKabayama SYamamoto TYone KSakou TNakanishi K: Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine 24:6706751999

18

McAfee PCCunningham BWDevine JWilliams EYu-Yahiro J: Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:3843892003

19

Mehren CSuchomel PGrochulla FBarsa PSourkova PHradil J: Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine 31:280228062006

20

Mummaneni PVBurkus JKHaid RWTraynelis VCZdeblick TA: Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6:1982092007

21

Murrey DJanssen MDelamarter RGoldstein JZigler JTay B: Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J 9:2752862009

22

Nilsson OSPersson PE: Heterotopic bone formation after joint replacement. Curr Opin Rheumatol 11:1271311999

23

Odom GLFinney WWoodhall B: Cervical disk lesions. J Am Med Assoc 166:23281958

24

Park DHRamakrishnan PCho THLorenz EEck JCHumphreys SC: Effect of lower two-level anterior cervical fusion on the superior adjacent level. J Neurosurg Spine 7:3363402007

25

Parkinson JFSekhon LH: Cervical arthroplasty complicated by delayed spontaneous fusion. Case report. J Neurosurg Spine 2:3773802005

26

Pickett GERouleau JPDuggal N: Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine 30:194919542005

27

Pickett GESekhon LHSears WRDuggal N: Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 4:981052006

28

Ritter MASieber JM: Prophylactic indomethacin for the prevention of heterotopic bone formation following total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 196:2172251985

29

Robertson JTPapadopoulos SMTraynelis VC: Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine 3:4174232005

30

Sasso RCBest NM: Cervical kinematics after fusion and bryan disc arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:19222008

31

Sasso RCSmucker JDHacker RJHeller JG: Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine 32:293329422007

32

Sasso RCSmucker JDHacker RJHeller JG: Clinical outcomes of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with 24-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:4814912007

33

Schwab JSDiangelo DJFoley KT: Motion compensation associated with single-level cervical fusion: where does the lost motion go?. Spine 31:243924482006

34

Suchomel PJurák LBenes V IIIBrabec RBradác OElgawhary S: Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 19:3073152010

35

Sundaram NAMurphy JC: Heterotopic bone formation following total hip arthroplasty in ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 207:2232261986

36

Wigfield CCSkrzypiec DJackowski AAdams MA: Internal stress distribution in cervical intervertebral discs: the influence of an artificial cervical joint and simulated anterior interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:4414492003

37

Wilkinson JMStockley IHamer AJBarrington NAEastell R: Biochemical markers of bone turnover and development of heterotopic ossification after total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 21:5295342003

TrendMD

Cited By

Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 94 94 41
Full Text Views 98 98 16
PDF Downloads 100 100 8
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0

PubMed

Google Scholar