Comparing Heterotopic Ossification in Two Cervical Disc Prostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis using data from randomized clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To compare the occurrence of heterotopic ossification (HO) between two cervical disc prostheses. Clinical outcome and range of motion (ROM) were also evaluated. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical arthroplasty was reported to be able to maintain the segmental ROM. However, controversy exists since the difference of the occurrence of HO concerning cervical prosthesis is still huge. METHODS: Patients who underwent anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty for a cervical radiculopathy due to a herniated disc from the The Netherlands Cervical Kinematics (NECK) trial (activC; metal endplates with a polyethylene inlay and a keel for primary stability) and the PROCON trial (Bryan; metal-on-polymer with titanium coated endplates without a keel) were analyzed for HO at 12 and 24 months postoperatively. HO was scored according to the McAfee-Mehren classification. Segmental ROM was defined by a custom developed image analysis tool, and global cervical ROM was measured by Cobb's angle. Clinical outcome was evaluated by means of the neck disability index (NDI) as well as physical-component summary (PCS) and mental-component summary (MCS). RESULTS: At 2-year follow-up, the occurrence of HO was 68% in patients treated with the activC prosthesis (severe HO 55%), which was comparable with 85% (P = 0.12) in patients with the Bryan disc (severe HO 44%; P = 0.43). The HO progression was similar between groups. Clinically, the patients had comparable NDI, PCS, and MCS at 2-year follow-up, and comparable improvement of clinical outcomes. The global ROM in the Bryan group (56.4 ± 10.8°) was significantly higher than in the activC group (49.5 ± 14.0, P = 0.044) at 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: In comparison of two cervical disc prostheses the development of HO is independent on their architecture. Although global ROM was higher in the Bryan prosthesis group, this difference was not deemed clinically important, particularly because the clinical condition of patients with and without severe HO was comparable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".