4.5 Review

Recurrence of heterotopic ossification after removal in patients with traumatic brain injury: A systematic review

Journal

ANNALS OF PHYSICAL AND REHABILITATION MEDICINE
Volume 59, Issue 4, Pages 263-269

Publisher

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2016.03.009

Keywords

Traumatic brain injury; Head injury; Heterotopic ossification; Recurrence

Categories

Funding

  1. foundation BNP-Paribas

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: A systematic review of the literature to determine whether in patients with neurological heterotopic ossification (NHO) after traumatic brain injury, the extent of the neurological sequelae, the timing of surgery and the extent of the initial NHO affect the risk of NHO recurrence. Data sources: We searched MEDLINE via PubMed and Cochrane library for articles published up to June 2015. Results were compared with epidemiological studies using data from the BANKHO database of 357 patients with central nervous system (CNS) lesions who underwent 539 interventions for troublesome HO. Results: A large number of studies were published in the 1980s and 1990s, most showing poor quality despite being performed by experienced surgical teams. Accordingly, results were contradictory and practices heterogeneous. Results with the BANKHO data showed troublesome NHO recurrence not associated with aetiology, sex, age at time of CNS lesion, multisite HO, or early'' surgery (before 6 months). Equally, recurrence was not associated with neurological sequelae or disease extent around the joint. Conclusions: The recurrence of NHO is not affected by delayed surgery, neurological sequelae or disease extent around the joint. Surgical excision of NHO should be performed as soon as comorbid factors are under control and the NHO is sufficiently constituted for excision. (C) 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available