>Study design: Retrospective cohort study.>Objective: To analyze the presence and clinical relevance of heterotopic ossification (HO) at 3 years mean follow-up.>Methods: Thirty patients suffering from cervical radiculopathy and/or myelopathy treated with anterior disc replacement (ADR) were studied. HO was classified using the McAfee grading system. Range of motion was measured from flexion and extension x-rays. Short-form 36 and neck disability index (NDI) assessed functional outcome.>Results: Forty-five prostheses were implanted in 30 patients with cervical radiculopathy and/or myelopathy, mean age 40.9 years. Nineteen patients received 1 level and 11 patients received multilevel disc replacement. The incidence rate of HO was 42.2% (19 levels). Segmental range of motion was ≥3° in 93.8% of patients with HO. There was no significant difference in functional scores between those who did and those who did not develop HO. Males tended to develop HO more frequently than females, though this was not statistically significant. The indication for surgery (soft disc hernia or spondylosis) was not associated with the formation of HO.>Conclusions: Functional improvement is maintained despite the presence of HO following cervical disc arthroplasty. Indications for arthroplasty should not be halted by the risk of HO. rules="all" class="rendered small default_table">>
Methods evaluation and class of evidence (CoE)
> valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">>Methodological principle: valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">> valign="top" align="left" colspan="2" rowspan="1">Study design:> valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Prospective cohort valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">> valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Retrospective cohort valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">•> valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Case-control valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">> valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Case series valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">> valign="top" align="left" colspan="2" rowspan="1">Methods> valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Patients at similar point in course of treatment valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">•> valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Follow-up ≥85% valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">> valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Similarity of treatment protocols for patient groups valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">•> valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Patients followed for long enough for outcomes to occur valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">•> valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Control for extraneous risk factors* valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">> valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">>Evidence class: valign="top" align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">>III> valign="top" align="left" colspan="2" rowspan="1">*Authors must provide a description of robust baseline characteristics, and control for those that are potential prognostic factors.The definiton of the different classes of evidence is available on page 83.
展开▼
