• search hit 9 of 16
Back to Result List

Implant Design and the Anchoring Mechanism Influence the Incidence of Heterotopic Ossification in Cervical Total Disc Replacement at 2-year Follow-up

  • Study Design. A nonrandomized, prospective, and single-center clinical trial. Objective. The aim of this study was to determine whether the prosthesis design, and especially changes in the primary anchoring mechanism between the keel-based ProDisc C and the spike-based ProDisc Vivo, affects the frequency of heterotopic ossification (HO) formation over time. Summary of Background Data. The occurrence of motion-restricting HO as well as underlying risk factors has so far been a widely discussed, but not well understand phenomenon. The anchoring mechanism and the opening of the anterior cortex may be possible causes of this unwanted complication. Methods. Forty consecutive patients treated with the ProDisc C and 42 consecutive patients treated with the ProDisc Vivo were compared with respect to radiological and clinical outcome, with 2 years of follow-up. Clinical outcome scores included the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and arm and neck pain self-assessment questionnaires. Radiological outcomes included theStudy Design. A nonrandomized, prospective, and single-center clinical trial. Objective. The aim of this study was to determine whether the prosthesis design, and especially changes in the primary anchoring mechanism between the keel-based ProDisc C and the spike-based ProDisc Vivo, affects the frequency of heterotopic ossification (HO) formation over time. Summary of Background Data. The occurrence of motion-restricting HO as well as underlying risk factors has so far been a widely discussed, but not well understand phenomenon. The anchoring mechanism and the opening of the anterior cortex may be possible causes of this unwanted complication. Methods. Forty consecutive patients treated with the ProDisc C and 42 consecutive patients treated with the ProDisc Vivo were compared with respect to radiological and clinical outcome, with 2 years of follow-up. Clinical outcome scores included the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and arm and neck pain self-assessment questionnaires. Radiological outcomes included the segmental lordosis and range of motion (ROM) of the index-segment as well as the occurrence of HO. Results. The clinical outcome parameters improved in both groups significantly. [ProDisc C: VAS arm and neck pain from 6.3 and 6.2 preoperatively to 0.7 and 1.3; NDI from 23.0 to 3.7; ProDisc Vivo: VAS arm and neck pain from 6.3 and 4.9 to 1.4 and 1.6, NDI from 34.1 to 8.7; 2-year follow-up (FU)]. The ProDisc Vivo cohort demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of HO than the ProDisc C group at 1-year FU (P = 0.0005) and 2-year FU (P = 0.005). Specifically, high-grade HO occurred in 9% versus 31%. Conclusion. These findings demonstrate that prosthesis designs that allow primary anchoring without violation of the cortical surface help to reduce the incidence of severe ossification, possibly affecting the functionality and mobility of the artificial disc device over of time.show moreshow less

Export metadata

Additional Services

Search Google Scholar Statistics
Metadaten
Author details:Christoph MehrenORCiDGND, Karin Wuertz-KozakORCiDGND, Daniel Sauer, Wolfgang HitzlORCiD, Tuna PehlivanogluORCiD, Franziska Heider
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003098
ISSN:0362-2436
ISSN:1528-1159
Pubmed ID:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31568185
Title of parent work (English):Spine
Publisher:Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Place of publishing:Philadelphia
Publication type:Article
Language:English
Year of first publication:2019
Publication year:2019
Release date:2020/10/06
Tag:ProDisc C; ProDisc Vivo; anchoring mechanism; cervical artificial disc replacement; heterotopic ossification (HO); implant design; total disc replacement
Volume:44
Issue:21
Number of pages:10
First page:1471
Last Page:1480
Organizational units:Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät / Institut für Biochemie und Biologie
DDC classification:5 Naturwissenschaften und Mathematik / 57 Biowissenschaften; Biologie / 570 Biowissenschaften; Biologie
Peer review:Referiert
Accept ✔
This website uses technically necessary session cookies. By continuing to use the website, you agree to this. You can find our privacy policy here.