Skip to main content

Table 5 Radiographic parameters between poor endplate coverage group and good endplate coverage group

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

 

P–E depth ratio < 93.77 (n = 81)

P–E depth ratio ≥ 93.77 (n = 93)

P value

PHO

53

20

 < 0.001*

Motion-restricting PHO

21

4

0.115

Post-op

   

 Cervical lordosis

13.07 ± 10.31

14.35 ± 10.59

0.621

 C2–C7 ROM

28.01 ± 12.12

29.44 ± 10.38

0.229

 Shell angle

4.29 ± 5.03

4.88 ± 5.05

0.612

 FSU angulation

2.59 ± 4.59

2.96 ± 4.85

0.573

 ROM at index level

7.77 ± 3.89

6.73 ± 3.57

0.040*

Last follow-up

   

 Cervical lordosis

11.11 ± 8.92

12.74 ± 8.48

0.219

 C2–C7 ROM

44.94 ± 14.47

52.38 ± 12.25

 < 0.001*

 Shell angle

1.50 ± 5.43

1.81 ± 4.70

0.687

 FSU angulation

 − 0.11 ± 4.87

 − 0.04 ± 4.64

0.928

 ROM at index level

7.31 ± 5.00

9.09 ± 4.61

0.003*

 Anterior bone loss

44

63

0.070

Changes during follow-up

   

 Cervical lordosis

 − 1.96 ± 9.10

 − 1.61 ± 9.01

0.800

 Shell angle

 − 2.79 ± 4.19

 − 3.07 ± 3.98

0.649

 FSU angulation

 − 2.70 ± 3.55

 − 3.01 ± 3.70

0.575

 Insertion angle

0.63 ± 4.29

1.77 ± 3.51

0.039*

  1. *Significant difference between two groups
  2. P-E: prosthesis-endplate; PHO, posterior heterotopic ossification; post-op, values at 1 week after surgery; FSU, functional spinal unit; ROM, range of motion