Table 4. HO Prevalence according to Different Types of Prosthesis Design.
| HO grade | Prestige (n=59) | ROTAIO (n=26) | Mobi-C (n=15) | Prodisc-C (n=13) | Activ C (n=7) | Discover (n=3) | Baguera (n=2) | N (%) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 48 | 20 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 88 (70.4) | 0.005* |
| I | 8 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 26 (20.8) | 0.128 |
| II | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 (7.2) | 0.746 |
| III | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (1.6) | 0.313 |
| IV | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 (0) | - |
| HO prevalence | 18.6 | 23.1 | 53.3 | 69.2 | 28.6 | 33.3 | 0 | 0.005* |
HO, heterotrophic ossification.
*p<0.05. p values in the table refer to differences in the prevalence of each HO grade according to the type of intervertebral prosthesis. Statistics using frequency table and Fisher’s exact test were used to obtain p values for each group.