Skip to main content
Log in

Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) aims to decrease the incidence of adjacent segment disease through motion preservation in the operated disc space. Ongoing data collection and increasing number of studies describing heterotopic ossification (HO) resulting in decreased mobility of implants, forced us to carefully evaluate our long-term clinical and morphological results of patients with CTDR. We present the first 54 consecutive patients treated with 65 ProdiscC™ prostheses during a 12-month period (2/2004–3/2005). All patients signed an informed consent and were included in prospective long-term study approved by hospital ethical committee. The 1- and 2-year follow-up analysis were available for all patients included and 4-year results for 50 patients (60 implants). Clinical (neck disability index-NDI, visual analog scale-VAS) and radiological follow-up was conducted at 1-, 2- and 4-years after the procedure. The Mehren/Suchomel modification of McAfee scale was used to classify the appearance of HO. Mean preoperative NDI was 34.5%, VAS for neck pain intensity 4.6 and VAS for arm pain intensity 5.0. At 1-, 2- and 4-year follow-up, the mean NDI was 30.7, 27.2, and 30.4, mean VAS for neck pain intensity 2.5, 2.1 and 2.9 and mean VAS for arm pain intensity pain 2.2, 1.9 and 2.3, respectively. Significant HO (grade III) was present in 45% of implants and segmental ankylosis (grade IV) in another 18% 4 years after intervention. This finding had no clinical consequences and 92% of patients would undergo the same surgery again. Our clinical results (NDI, VAS) are comparable with fusion techniques. Although, advanced non-fusion technology is used, a significant frequency of HO formation and spontaneous fusion in cervical disc replacement surgery must be anticipated during long-term follow-up.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baba H, Furusawa N, Imura S, Kawahara N, Tsuchiya H, Tomita K (1993) Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:2167–2173

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bartels RH, Donk R (2005) Fusion around cervical disc prosthesis: case report. Neurosurgery 57:E194 (discussion E194)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Beaurain J, Bernard P, Dufour T, Fuentes JM, Hovorka I, Huppert J, Steib JP, Vital JM, Aubourg L, Vila T (2009) Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C) with up to 2 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J 18:841–850

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bertagnoli R (2008) Heterotopic ossification at the index level after Prodisc-C surgery: what is the clinical relevance? Spine J 8:123S

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bertagnoli R, Duggal N, Pickett GE, Wigfield CC, Gill SS, Karg A, Voigt S (2005) Cervical total disc replacement, part two: clinical results. Orthop Clin North Am 36:355–362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55:1629–1632

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cloward RB (1952) The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral disc by vertebral body fusion. III. Method of use of banked bone. Ann Surg 136:987–992

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Datta JC, Janssen ME, Beckham R, Ponce C (2007) Sagittal split fractures in multilevel cervical arthroplasty using a keeled prosthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:89–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. DiAngelo DJ, Roberston JT, Metcalf NH, McVay BJ, Davis RC (2003) Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:314–323

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dmitriev AE, Cunningham BW, Hu N, Sell G, Vigna F, McAfee PC (2005) Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1165–1172

    Google Scholar 

  11. Doran SE, Walsh J, Kinkaid A, Cutler D (2003) Prospective analysis of dysphagia following anterior cervical spine fusion. In: 31st annual meeting of the Cervical Spine Research Society. Scottsdale, Arizona, December 11–13, 2003

  12. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, Jeong ST, Kim JG, Hodges SD, An HS (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:2431–2434

    Google Scholar 

  13. Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Sgrambiglia R, Pointillart V (2003) Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:2673–2678

    Google Scholar 

  14. Goffin J, van Loon J, Van Calenbergh F, Plets C (1995) Long-term results after anterior cervical fusion and osteosynthetic stabilization for fractures and/or dislocations of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord 8:500–508 discussion 499

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hilibrand AS, Yoo JU, Carlson GD, Bohlman HH (1997) The success of anterior cervical arthrodesis adjacent to a previous fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:1574–1579

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Janssen M, Goldstein J, Murrey D, Delamarter R (2007) Heterotopic ossification at the index level after Prodisc-C: what is the clinical significance? Spine J 7:48S–49S

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kjaersgaard-Andersen P, Schmidt SA (1991) Total hip arthroplasty. The role of antiinflammatory medications in the prevention of heterotopic ossification. Clin Orthop Relat Res 263:78–86

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Leung C, Casey AT, Goffin J, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Pointillart V (2005) Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery 57:759–763 (discussion 759–763)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J, Williams E, Yu-Yahiro J (2003) Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:384–389

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, Barsa P, Sourkova P, Hradil J, Korge A, Mayer HM (2006) Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:2802–2806

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA (2007) Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6:198–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B (2009) 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 9:275–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Pitzen T, Steudel WI, Jung J, Shariat K, Steimer O, Bachelier F, Pape D (2007) Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study. Eur Spine J 16:423–430

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Parkinson JF, Sekhon LH (2005) Cervical arthroplasty complicated by delayed spontaneous fusion. Case report. J Neurosurg Spine 2:377–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pimenta L, McAfee PC, Cappuccino A, Bellera FP, Link HD (2004) Clinical experience with the new artificial cervical PCM (Cervitech) disc. Spine J 4:315S–321S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM, Traynelis VC (2005) Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine 3:417–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, Heller JG (2007) Clinical outcomes of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with 24-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:481–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shim CS, Shin HD, Lee SH (2007) Posterior avulsion fracture at adjacent vertebral body during cervical disc replacement with ProDisc-C: a case report. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:468–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Smith GW, Robinson RA (1958) The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 40-A:607–624

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sola S, Hebecker R, Mann S (2008) Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: 5 years follow-up. Motion preservation technology 8th annual meeting. Miami, Florida, May 6–9, 2008

  32. Weinhoffer SL, Guyer RD, Herbert M, Griffith SL (1995) Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:526–531

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was presented in part at the Eurospine 2009 meeting in Warsaw, October 21–24.

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vladimír Beneš III.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Suchomel, P., Jurák, L., Beneš, V. et al. Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 19, 307–315 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1259-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1259-3

Keywords

Navigation