Does heterotopic ossification affect the outcomes of cervical total disc replacement? A meta-analysis

Meta-analysis. The purpose of this study was to answer the following questions: (1) Does heterotopic ossification (HO) negatively influence clinical outcomes after cervical total disc replacement (CTDR)? (2) Should patients be classified into HO and non-HO groups? (3) Is there a more rational classi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976) Vol. 40; no. 6; p. E332
Main Authors: Zhou, Hao-han, Qu, Yang, Dong, Rong-peng, Kang, Ming-yang, Zhao, Jian-wu
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States 15.03.2015
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cervical Vertebrae - surgery
Female
Humans
Intervertebral Disc - surgery
Male
Middle Aged
Neck Pain - etiology
Ossification, Heterotopic - physiopathology
Total Disc Replacement - adverse effects
Total Disc Replacement - methods
Total Disc Replacement - statistics & numerical data
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
ISSN:1528-1159, 1528-1159
Online Access:Get more information
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Meta-analysis. The purpose of this study was to answer the following questions: (1) Does heterotopic ossification (HO) negatively influence clinical outcomes after cervical total disc replacement (CTDR)? (2) Should patients be classified into HO and non-HO groups? (3) Is there a more rational classification? Heterotopic ossification has emerged as a common complication after CTDR and has been an important reason for reoperation, thus limiting the use of the surgery. However, the influence of HO on clinical outcomes after CTDR has not been well established. A meta-analysis was conducted with studies identified by searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. We calculated the weighted mean differences of the visual analogue scale pain score, Neck Disability Index, and range of motion (ROM). Patients were classified into 2 groups under 3 classifications on the basis of the grade of HO. Results were pooled using a fixed effect model or a random effects model, according to the heterogeneity. There were significant differences in ROM under all 3 classifications. The visual analogue scale pain score and the Neck Disability Index between the patients with and without HO showed no significant difference after CTDR. Significant differences in visual analogue scale pain score were observed when patients were classified into a "high-grade HO" group (McAfee grades 3 or 4 HO) and a "low-grade HO" group (McAfee grade 0, 1, or 2 HO). The presence of HO is not associated with clinical outcomes after CTDR. However, the severity of HO actually impacts clinical outcomes in an inverse manner, which needs further investigation. It is inappropriate to classify patients on the basis of the presence of HO; further studies of the classifications (ROM-affecting HO vs. ROM-preserving HO; high-grade HO vs. low-grade HO) and cervical stability after CTDR are needed. 2.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1528-1159
1528-1159
DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000776