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

Contributor Notes

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.
Headings
References
  • 1

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
TrendMD
Cited By
Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 299 283 26
Full Text Views 128 80 1
PDF Downloads 115 48 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0
PubMed
Google Scholar