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

被引:28
作者
Hui, Nicholas [1 ,2 ]
Phan, Kevin [1 ,2 ]
Kerferd, Jack [1 ,2 ]
Lee, Meiyi [1 ,3 ]
Mobbs, Ralph J. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
机构
[1] NeuroSpine Surg Res Grp, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[2] Univ New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[3] Hong Kong Polytech Univ, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[4] NeuroSpineClin, Sydney, NSW, Australia
关键词
cervical total disc replacement; heterotopic ossification; risk factors; prevalence; PROSTHESIS; ARTHROPLASTY; DISKECTOMY; OUTCOMES; DISEASE; FUSION; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1177/2192568219881163
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
100204 [神经病学];
摘要
Study Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: The results from previous meta-analyses are limited by the small number of included studies. Moreover, the risk factors of heterotopic ossification (HO) have not been well studied. Therefore, this study aims to estimate the prevalence of HO after cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) at different follow-up time points and explore potential risk factors for HO. Methods: We searched databases to identify eligible studies that reported the rate of HO after CTDR. The pooled prevalence of HO, according to different grades of HO, length of follow-up and types of prosthesis, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Multivariable meta-regression analyses were performed to identify factors that may contribute to the heterogeneity between estimates. Results: Of the 94 studies included, 82 studies reported an overall rate of HO, encompassing a total of 5861 cervical spinal levels that underwent CTDR. The overall pooled prevalence of HO was 32.5% (95% CI 26.7% to 38.4%). Single-level CTDR was associated with a higher overall rate of HO. When the rate of HO was stratified by McAfee/Mehren classification, the pooled prevalence of range of motion (ROM)-limiting HO was 11.0% (95% CI 9.2% to 12.8%). Latest publication, single-level CTDR, longer follow-up period, and studies published outside were associated with a higher rate of ROM-limiting HO. Conclusions: We provide a comprehensive overview of the prevalence of different grades of HO. This meta-analysis also identifies and rules out some risk factors for HO after CTDR.
引用
收藏
页码:790 / 804
页数:15
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]
Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: 12-month clinical outcome [J].
Amit, A. ;
Dorward, N. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2007, 21 (05) :478-484
[2]
Cervical hybrid arthroplasty with 2 unique fusion techniques [J].
Cardoso, Mario J. ;
Mendelsohn, Audra ;
Rosner, Michael K. .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2011, 15 (01) :48-54
[3]
CARDOSO MJ, 2010, NEUROSURG FOCUS, V28
[4]
Prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis [J].
Chen, Jian ;
Wang, Xinwei ;
Bai, Wanshan ;
Shen, Xiaolong ;
Yuan, Wen .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2012, 21 (04) :674-680
[5]
Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study [J].
Cheng, Lei ;
Nie, Lin ;
Zhang, Li ;
Hou, Yong .
INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2009, 33 (05) :1347-1351
[6]
Cho Hyun-Jin, 2012, Korean J Spine, V9, P209, DOI 10.14245/kjs.2012.9.3.209
[7]
Early follow-up outcomes after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the discover cervical disc prosthesis [J].
Du, Junjie ;
Li, Mo ;
Liu, Hao ;
Meng, Hao ;
He, Qizhen ;
Luo, Zhuojing .
SPINE JOURNAL, 2011, 11 (04) :281-289
[8]
Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion [J].
Eck, JC ;
Humphreys, SC ;
Lim, TH ;
Jeong, ST ;
Kim, JG ;
Hodges, SD ;
An, HS .
SPINE, 2002, 27 (22) :2431-2434
[9]
2015 Updated Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group [J].
Furlan, Andrea D. ;
Malmivaara, Antti ;
Chou, Roger ;
Maher, Chris G. ;
Deyo, Rick A. ;
Schoene, Mark ;
Bronfort, Gert ;
van Tulder, Maurits W. .
SPINE, 2015, 40 (21) :1660-1673
[10]
GARLAND DE, 1991, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P13