Advertisement

Cervical Total Disc Replacement: Heterotopic Ossification and Complications

  • Michael Paci
  • Michael Y. WangEmail author
Living reference work entry
First Online:

Abstract

Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) can be complicated by the occurrence of heterotopic ossification (HO). HO occurs when bone formation happens in tissues where it is not normally present. It is graded radiographically and develops on a spectrum, from ossification anterior to the cervical spine to ossification involving the articulating surfaces and causing an effective fusion. The true incidence of HO after CTDR is still under debate, with rates reported in the literature varying from approximately 20–90% of patients. The exact causes of HO are still unknown, but associations have been found with male gender, older age, type of prosthesis used, multilevel surgery, and surgical technique. The presence of HO after CTDR has not been correlated with worse clinical outcomes. There is no evidence to date to support a specific strategy to prevent HO, but prescribing a short course of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is often done. CTDR is also associated with other complications, including complications that can occur during the anterior approach to the cervical spine, complications related to the prosthesis used and adjacent segment disease.

Keywords

Cervical disc replacement Heterotopic calcification Anterior cervical approach Prosthesis-related complication Adjacent segment disease 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Balboni TA, Gobezie R, Mamon HJ (2006) Heterotopic ossification: pathophysiology, clinical features, and the role of radiotherapy for prophylaxis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:1289–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA et al (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55:1629–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cavanaugh DA, Nunley PD, Kerr EJ 3rd et al (2009) Delayed hyper-reactivity to metal ions after cervical disc arthroplasty: a case report and literature review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:E262–E265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. D’lima DD, Venn-Watson EJ, Tripuraneni P et al (2001) Indomethacin versus radiation therapy for heterotopic ossification after hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 24:1139–1143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Fan H, Wu S, Wu Z et al (2012) Implant failure of Bryan cervical disc due to broken polyurethane sheath: a case report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:E814–E816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG et al (2007) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:2310–2317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P et al (2002) Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Neurosurgery 51:840–845; discussion 845–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, Van Loon J et al (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) 28:2673–2678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heidecke V, Burkert W, Brucke M et al (2008) Intervertebral disc replacement for cervical degenerative disease – clinical results and functional outcome at two years in patients implanted with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Acta Neurochir 150:453–459; discussion 459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Janssen ME, Zigler JE, Spivak JM et al (2015) ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease: seven-year follow-up of the prospective randomized U.S. Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:1738–1747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lee JH, Jung TG, Kim HS et al (2010) Analysis of the incidence and clinical effect of the heterotopic ossification in a single-level cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J 10:676–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leung C, Casey AT, Goffin J et al (2005) Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery 57:759–763; discussion 759-763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mcafee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J et al (2003) Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:384–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F et al (2006) Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:2802–2806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nguyen NQ, Kafle D, Buchowski JM et al (2011) Ceramic fracture following cervical disc arthroplasty: a case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:e132. (131–134)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Kerr EJ 3rd et al (2012) Factors affecting the incidence of symptomatic adjacent-level disease in cervical spine after total disc arthroplasty: 2- to 4-year follow-up of 3 prospective randomized trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:445–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Park JH, Rhim SC, Roh SW (2013) Mid-term follow-up of clinical and radiologic outcomes in cervical total disk replacement (Mobi-C): incidence of heterotopic ossification and risk factors. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:141–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 3:417–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shehab D, Elgazzar AH, Collier BD (2002) Heterotopic ossification. J Nucl Med 43:346–353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 20:468–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Suchomel P, Jurak L, Benes V 3rd et al (2010) Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 19:307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC et al (2011) Heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc replacement: determination by CT and effects on clinical outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine 14:457–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tu TH, Wu JC, Fay LY et al (2012) Vertebral body split fracture after a single-level cervical total disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine 16:231–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC et al (2015) Postoperative nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and the prevention of heterotopic ossification after cervical arthroplasty: analysis using CT and a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 22:447–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai HW et al (2012) Differences between 1- and 2-level cervical arthroplasty: more heterotopic ossification in 2-level disc replacement: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 16:594–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yi S, Shin DA, Kim KN et al (2013) The predisposing factors for the heterotopic ossification after cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J 13:1048–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurological SurgeryUniversity of Miami Miller School of MedicineMiamiUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Domagoj Coric
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Neurological SurgeryCarolinas Medical CenterCharlotteUSA
  2. 2.Carolina Neurosurgery and Spine AssociatesCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite entry