Incidence of bone loss after Prestige-LP cervical disc arthroplasty: a single-center retrospective study of 396 cases

Wu, Tingkui; Líu, Hao; Wang, Beiyu; He, Junbo; Ding, Chen; Xiao, Rong; Yang, Yi; Huang, Keh‐Ning; Hong, Ying

doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2020.05.102

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For these studies, mean length of follow-up ranged from 24-120 months; therefore, some studies may not have sufficient follow-up time to assess longterm ramifications of early bone loss. Five articles reported range of motion (ROM) data for the patient cohorts [39][40][41][42]44]. Of these, only one study compared ROM of patients with or without bone loss, reporting mean pre-operative ROM of 8.99° and final follow-up of 8.25° in patients with bone loss, and pre-operative ROM of 9.1° and post-operative of 7.09° in those with no-bone loss, but this difference was not statistically significant [44].…”

Section: Reported Bone Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five articles reported range of motion (ROM) data for the patient cohorts [39][40][41][42]44]. Of these, only one study compared ROM of patients with or without bone loss, reporting mean pre-operative ROM of 8.99° and final follow-up of 8.25° in patients with bone loss, and pre-operative ROM of 9.1° and post-operative of 7.09° in those with no-bone loss, but this difference was not statistically significant [44]. The remaining articles reported ROM for the total patient population, but did not distinguish between patients with or without bone loss [39][40][41][42].…”

Section: Reported Bone Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One article was excluded from this calculation due to duplicity of the patient cohort from another included article. Five articles used grading criteria to rank bone loss, with mild bone loss most commonly reported [25,[39][40][41]44]. Bone loss differed in both severity and incidence among devices, but because data was not reported consistently, no definitive conclusions could be drawn.…”

Section: Reported Bone Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The lexicon for periprosthetic bone loss versus osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Periprosthetic bone loss is a common observation following arthroplasty. Recognizing and understanding the nature of bone loss is vital as it determines the subsequent performance of the device and the overall outcome. Despite its significance, the term “bone loss” is often misused to describe inflammatory osteolysis, a complication with vastly different clinical outcomes and treatment plans. Therefore, the goal of this review was to report major findings related to vertebral radiographic bone changes around cervical disc replacements, mitigate discrepancies in clinical reports by introducing uniform terminology to the field, and establish a precedence that can be used to identify the important nuances between these distinct complications. Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, using the keywords “cervical,” “disc replacement,” “osteolysis,” “bone loss,” “radiograph,” and “complications.” A total of 23 articles met the inclusion criteria with the majority being retrospective or case reports. Results Fourteen studies reported periprosthetic osteolysis in a total of 46 patients with onset ranging from 15–96 months after the index procedure. Reported causes included: metal hypersensitivity, infection, mechanical failure, and wear debris. Osteolysis was generally progressive and led to reoperation. Nine articles reported non-inflammatory bone loss in 527 patients (52.5%), typically within 3–6 months following implantation. The reported causes included: micromotion, stress shielding, and interrupted blood supply. With one exception, bone loss was reported to be non-progressive and had no effect on clinical outcome measures. Conclusions Non-progressive, early onset bone loss is a common finding after CDA and typically does not affect the reported short-term pain scores or lead to early revision. By contrast, osteolysis was less common, presenting more than a year post-operative and often accompanied by additional complications, leading to revision surgery. A greater understanding of the clinical significance is limited by the lack of long-term studies, inconsistent terminology, and infrequent use of histology and explant analyses. Uniform reporting and adoption of consistent terminology can mitigate some of these limitations. Executing these actionable items is critical to assess device performance and the risk of revision. Level of Evidence IV Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

show abstract

Section: Reported Bone Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reported Bone Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reported Bone Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The lexicon for periprosthetic bone loss versus osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although there was still no consensus on the classification system of bone loss, most of the current classification systems were based on the radiographic features. According to the published articles and our findings [4], none of them reported a relative motion between prosthesis and endplates during extension-flexion motion even with severe bone loss. Therefore, it is not appropriated for motion between prosthesis and endplates as an evaluation index.…”

mentioning

confidence: 46%

Letter to the Editor concerning “Osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty” by Joaquim AF, et al. (Eur Spine J; [2020]: doi: 10.1007/s00586-020–06,578-2)

Liu

et al. 2020

Eur Spine J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…They found that patients with BL achieved similar clinical outcomes compared with those without BL [ 32 ]. Wu et al performed a retrospective study of 396 patients in a single center and found BL did not affect clinical outcomes but patients with BL had a larger segmental ROM [ 33 ]. However, Hacker et al reported that one patient with BL had recurrent neck and arm pain for 52 months postoperatively, with radiological evaluations demonstrating segmental kyphosis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of smoking on outcomes following anterior cervical fusion-nonfusion hybrid surgery: a retrospective single-center cohort study

Wang

Meng

Líu

et al. 2021

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is mixed evidence for the impact of cigarette smoking on outcomes following anterior cervical surgery. It has been reported to have a negative impact on healing after multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, however, segmental mobility has been suggested to be superior in smokers who underwent one- or two-level cervical disc replacement. Hybrid surgery, including anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and cervical disc replacement, has emerged as an alternative procedure for multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease. This study aimed to examine the impact of smoking on intermediate-term outcomes following hybrid surgery. Methods Radiographical and clinical outcomes of 153 patients who had undergone continuous two- or three-level hybrid surgery were followed-up to a minimum of 2-years post-operatively. The early fusion effect, 1-year fusion rate, the incidence of bone loss and heterotopic ossification, as well as the clinical outcomes were compared across three smoking status groups: (1) current smokers; (2) former smokers; (3) nonsmokers. Results Clinical outcomes were comparable among the three groups. However, the current smoking group had a poorer early fusion effect and 1-year fusion rate (P < 0.001 and P < 0.035 respectively). Both gender and smoking status were considered as key factors for 1-year fusion rate. Upon multivariable analysis, male gender (OR = 6.664, 95% CI: 1.248–35.581, P = 0.026) and current smoking status (OR = 0.009, 95% CI: 0.020–0.411, P = 0.002) were significantly associated with 1-year fusion rate. A subgroup analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences in both early fusion process (P < 0.001) and the 1-year fusion rate (P = 0.006) across the three smoking status groups in female patients. Finally, non-smoking status appeared to be protective against bone loss (OR = 0.427, 95% CI: 0.192–0.947, P = 0.036), with these patients likely to have at least one grade lower bone loss than current smokers. Conclusions Smoking is associated with poor outcomes following hybrid surgery for multilevel cervical disc disease. Current smokers had the poorest fusion rate and most bone loss, but no statistically significant differences were seen in clinical outcomes across the three groups.

show abstract

Incidence of bone loss after Prestige-LP cervical disc arthroplasty: a single-center retrospective study of 396 cases

Cited by 17 publications

References 35 publications

The lexicon for periprosthetic bone loss versus osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review

The lexicon for periprosthetic bone loss versus osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review

Letter to the Editor concerning “Osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty” by Joaquim AF, et al. (Eur Spine J; [2020]: doi: 10.1007/s00586-020–06,578-2)

The impact of smoking on outcomes following anterior cervical fusion-nonfusion hybrid surgery: a retrospective single-center cohort study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About