Mid-term follow-up of clinical and radiologic outcomes in cervical total disk replacement (Mobi-C): Incidence of heterotopic ossification and risk factors

Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 141-145

  Park, Jin Hoon ^a   Rhim, Seung Chul ^a   Roh, Sung Woo ^a  

^a University of Ulsan College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Cervical total disk replacement; Clinical outcome; Heterotopic ossification; HO; Surgical technique; TDR

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARM PAIN; ARTICLE; BONE PROSTHESIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HETEROTOPIC OSSIFICATION; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK HERNIA; LORDOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NECK DISABILITY INDEX; NECK PAIN; ODOM CRITERIA; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; RATING SCALE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SURGICAL RISK; TOTAL DISC REPLACEMENT;

ADULT; AGED; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; DISKECTOMY; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DISPLACEMENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OSSIFICATION, HETEROTOPIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; TOTAL DISC REPLACEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84880035081     PISSN: 15360652     EISSN: 15392465     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31823ba071     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew KD. Update on cervical artificial disk replacement. Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:237-245.
2. Beaurain J, Bernard P, Dufour T, et al. Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C) with up to 2 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2009;18:841-850.
3. Coric D, Finger F, Boltes P. Prospective randomized controlled study of the Bryan cervical disc: early clinical results from a single investigational site. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006;4:31-35.
4. Heidecke V, Burkert W, Brucke M, et al. 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 (Wien). 2008;150:453-459; discussion 459.
5. Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, et al. Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:101-107.
6. Ren X, Wang W, Chu T, et al. The intermediate clinical outcome and its limitations of Bryan cervical arthroplasty for treatment of cervical disc herniation. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24:221-229.
7. Walraevens J, Demaerel P, Suetens P, et al. Longitudinal prospective long-term radiographic follow-up after treatment of single-level cervical disk disease with the Bryan cervical disc. Neurosurgery. 2010;67:679-687; discussion 687.
8. McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J, et al. Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16:384-389.
9. Suchomel P, Jurak L, Benes V 3rd, et al. Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:307-315.
10. Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, et al. Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31:2802-2806.
11. Lee JH, Jung TG, Kim HS, et al. Analysis of the incidence and clinical effect of the heterotopic ossification in a single-level cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J. 2010;10:676-682.
12. Yi S, Kim KN, Yang MS, et al. Difference in occurrence of heterotopic ossification according to prosthesis type in the cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35: 1556-1561.
13. Sola S, Hebecker R, Knoop M. Bryan cervical disc prosthesis - three years follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2005;14:38.
14. Pickett GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N. Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:1949-1954.