ArticleGlobal spine journal2020
Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Heterotopic Ossification After Cervical Total Disc Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Global spine journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of heterotopic ossification following lumbar total disk replacement: a systematic review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Pooled it
- Complications of cervical total disc replacement and their associations with heterotopic ossification: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2020Pooled it
- Does the novel artificial cervical joint complex resolve the conflict between stability and mobility after anterior cervical surgery? a finite element study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Catastrophic delayed cervical arthroplasty failure: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2022Article
- The impact of smoking on outcomes following anterior cervical fusion-nonfusion hybrid surgery: a retrospective single-center cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- The Changes in Cervical Biomechanics After CTDR and Its Association With Heterotopic Ossification: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Global spine journal · 2021Article
- Cervical Total Disc Replacement and Heterotopic Ossification: A Review of Literature Outcomes and Biomechanics.Asian spine journal · 2021Article
- Preliminary Clinical Outcome of One-level Mobi-C Total Disc Replacement in Japanese Population.Spine surgery and related research · 2021Article
- Association between anterior bone loss and anterior heterotopic ossification in hybrid surgery.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA systematic review and meta-analysis.
objectivesThe 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsOf 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.
conclusionsWe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.