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

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.

Long-term Follow-Up Results of Dynamic Cervical Implant in Patients with Cervical Disc Diseases: Compared with Prestige LP

Background and Study Aims: Prestige LP arthroplasty has been proven to be a safe and effective treatment for patients with cervical disc degenerative disease (DDD). Dynamic Cervical Implant (DCI) has emerged as a novel implantation device for cervical DDD. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of these procedures after 5 years of follow-up in the DCI and Prestige LP groups. Key words: cervical disc degenerative disease; cervical disc replacement; Dynamic Cervical Implant; Prestige LP Materials and Methods: This study retrospectively enrolled 79 consecutive cervical DDD patients with 41 DCI and 47 Prestige LP prostheses implanted. Radiographs were analyzed for intervertebral height and range of motion (ROM). Neural function of the participants was assessed using the Neck Disability Index score, Visual Analog Scale, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score and 36-Item Short Form Survey. Results: The DCI group had statistically lesser flexion/extension and bilateral bending ROM than the Prestige LP group at the operated level(s) (p<0.05). The DCI group showed improved lordotic alignment of C2–C7 and operated functional spinal unit than the Prestige LP group (p<0.05). No statistical difference was observed in the neural function of the two groups. Heterotopic ossification was found in 7 and 14 patients in the DCI and Prestige LP groups, respectively. Conclusion: The 5 years follow-up results were comparable between the two groups. We believe that DCI implantation is a safe and effective procedure and could possibly become an alternative treatment for cervical DDD.

Effects of endplate coverage and intervertebral height change on heterotopic ossification following cervical disc replacement

Background Heterotopic ossification (HO) is a common complication after cervical disc replacement (CDR). Biomechanical factors including endplate coverage and intervertebral disc height change may be related to HO formation. However, there is a dearth of quantitative analysis for endplate coverage, intervertebral height change and their combined effects on HO. Methods Patients who underwent single-level or two-level CDR with Prestige-LP were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated through Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, Neck Disability Index (NDI) score, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score. Radiological data, including the prosthesis-endplate depth ratio, intervertebral height change, posterior heterotopic ossification (PHO) and angular parameters, were collected. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the potential risk factors. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted and the cut-off values of each potential factors were calculated. Results A total of 138 patients with 174 surgical segments were evaluated. Both the prosthesis-endplate depth ratio (P < 0.001) and post-operative disc height change (P < 0.001) were predictive factors for PHO formation. The area under the curve (AUC) of the prosthesis-endplate depth ratio, disc height change and their combined effects represented by the combined parameter (CP) were 0.728, 0.712 and 0.793, respectively. The risk of PHO significantly increased when the prosthesis-endplate depth ratio < 93.77% (P < 0.001, OR = 6.909, 95% CI 3.521–13.557), the intervertebral height change ≥ 1.8 mm (P < 0.001, OR = 5.303, 95% CI 2.592–10.849), or the CP representing the combined effect < 84.88 (P < 0.001, OR = 10.879, 95% CI 5.142–23.019). Conclusions Inadequate endplate coverage and excessive change of intervertebral height are both potential risk factors for the PHO after CDR. Endplate coverage less than 93.8% or intervertebral height change more than 1.8 mm would increase the risk of PHO. The combination of these two factors may exacerbate the non-uniform distribution of stress in the bone-implant interface and promote HO development.