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

Published on 2019-10-15T12:09:20Z (GMT) by
<div>Study Design:<p>A systematic review and meta-analysis.</p>Objectives:<p>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.</p>Methods:<p>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.</p>Results:<p>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.</p>Conclusions:<p>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.</p></div>

Cite this collection

Hui, Nicholas; Phan, Kevin; Kerferd, Jack; Lee, Meiyi; Mobbs, Ralph J. (2019): Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Heterotopic Ossification After Cervical Total Disc Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. SAGE Journals. Collection. https://doi.org/10.25384/SAGE.c.4698452.v1