Is rod diameter associated with the rate of rod fracture in patients treated with magnetically controlled growing rods?
Adolescent
Age Factors
Age of Onset
Child
Child, Preschool
Female
Humans
Infant
Magnetics
Male
Prostheses and Implants
/ adverse effects
Prosthesis Design
/ adverse effects
Prosthesis Failure
/ adverse effects
Prosthesis Implantation
/ adverse effects
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Scoliosis
/ surgery
Treatment Outcome
Early onset scoliosis
MCGR
Rod fracture
Journal
Spine deformity
ISSN: 2212-1358
Titre abrégé: Spine Deform
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101603979
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
27
03
2020
accepted:
08
06
2020
pubmed:
21
6
2020
medline:
22
7
2021
entrez:
21
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Few risk factors for fracture in magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGR) have been identified. We hypothesize an increased rate of rod fracture in small diameter rods compared to large diameter rods in patients with early-onset scoliosis (EOS). The purpose of this study was to determine the association between the diameter of MCGR constructs and the rate of rod fracture. Patients with EOS who underwent MCGR implantation-primary or conversion-from 2013 to 2018 were identified from two registries including 40 centers. Rod diameter sizes greater than 5.0 mm or less than or equal to 5.0 mm were defined as "Large" and "Small" rods, respectively. Only dual-rod constructs were included. The primary outcome measure collected was rod fracture at any point in treatment up to the most recent follow-up. Cox regression was utilized for unequal follow-up to compare rate of breakage at the last follow-up between cohorts. 527 patients with 1,054 rods were included. 552 (52.4%) rods had a diameter of less than or equal to 5.0 mm and 461 (43.7%) rods had a diameter of greater than 5.0 mm. 41 (3.9%) rods were missing a recorded rod diameter and were not included in the analysis to determine the association between the rate of fracture and rod diameter. 20 (1.9%) total rod fractures occurred: 9 (1.6%) rods with diameters of ≤ 5.0 mm, 10 (2.2%) rods with diameters of > 5.0 mm, and 1 uncategorized rod (p = 0.529). No difference in the rate of rod fracture or survival distribution was found between rod diameters of > 5.0 mm and ≤ 5.0 mm even after stratification by ambulatory status, major coronal curve, weight, or location of anchors. Rod fracture appears to be a rare event in dual MCGR constructs and rod diameter does not seem to be associated with the incidence or rate of rod fracture. Surgeons may consider other criteria for selecting rod diameter in their patients such as patient size, amount of surgical correction, single vs. dual constructs, and risk of hardware prominence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32562099
doi: 10.1007/s43390-020-00161-x
pii: 10.1007/s43390-020-00161-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1375-1384Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Klyce W, Mitchell S, Pawelek J, Skaggs D, Sanders J, Shah S, McCarthy R, Luhman S, Sturm P, Akbarnia B, Sponseller P (2018) Current use in growth-friendly implants: a ten-year update. Spine Deform 6:797–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2018.09.015
doi: 10.1016/j.jspd.2018.09.015
Akbarnia BA, Breakwell LM, Marks DS, McCarthy RE, Thompson AG, Canale SK, Kostial PN, Tambe A, Asher MA, Growing Spine Study Group (2008) Dual growing rod technique followed for three to eleven years until final fusion: the effect of frequency of lengthening. Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976) 33: 984–90 (OD-2008/04/23). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&DbFrom=pubmed&Cmd=Link&LinkName=pubmed_pubmed&LinkReadableName=RelatedArticles&IdsFromResult=18427320&ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Akbarnia BA, Marks DS, Boachie-Adjei O, Thompson AG, Asher MA (2005) Dual growing rod technique for the treatment of progressive early-onset scoliosis: a multicenter study. Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976) 30:S46–57. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16138066 . Accessed 9 Jul 2014
Hasler C-C, Mehrkens A, Hefti F (2010) Efficacy and safety of VEPTR instrumentation for progressive spine deformities in young children without rib fusions. Eur Spine J 19:400–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1253-9
doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-1253-9
pubmed: 20041270
Sankar WN, Acevedo DC, Skaggs DL (2010) Comparison of complications among growing spinal implants. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:2091–2096. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c6edd7
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c6edd7
Kabirian N, Akbarnia BA, Pawelek JB, Alam M, Mundis GM, Acacio R, Thompson GH, Marks DS, Gardner A, Sponseller PD, Skaggs DL (2014) Deep surgical site infection following 2344 growing-rod procedures for early-onset scoliosis: risk factors and clinical consequences. J. Bone Joint Surg Am 96:e128. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00618
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00618
pubmed: 25100781
Matsumoto H, Williams BA, Corona J, Comer JS, Fisher PW, Neria Y, Roye BD, Roye DP, Vitale MG (2014) Psychosocial effects of repetitive surgeries in children with early-onset scoliosis: are we putting them at risk? J Pediatr Orthop 34:172–178. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e3182a11d73
doi: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e3182a11d73
pubmed: 23872801
Choi E, Yaszay B, Mundis G, Hosseini P, Pawelek J, Alanay A, Berk H, Cheung K, Demirkiran G, Ferguson J, Greggi T, Helenius I, La Rosa G, Senkoylu A, Akbarnia BA (2017) Implant complications after magnetically controlled growing rods for early onset scoliosis: a multicenter retrospective review. J Pediatr Orthop 37:e588–e592. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000000803
doi: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000000803
pubmed: 27328123
Dannawi Z, Altaf F, Harshavardhana NS, El Sebaie H, Noordeen H (2013) Early results of a remotely-operated magnetic growth rod in early onset scoliosis. Bone Joint J 95:75–80. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B1.29565
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B1.29565
pubmed: 23307677
Akbarnia BA, Cheung K, Noordeen H, Elsebaie H, Yazici M, Dannawi Z, Kabirian N (2013) Next generation of growth-sparing techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:665–670. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182773560
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182773560
Ridderbusch K, Rupprecht M, Kunkel P, Hagemann C, Stücker R (2017) Preliminary results of magnetically controlled growing rods for early onset scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 37:e575–e580. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000000752
doi: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000000752
pubmed: 27182837
La Rosa G, Ruzzini L, Oggiano L (2016) Magnetically controlled growing rods for the management of early-onset scoliosis: results and complications at 3-year follow-up. Glob Spine J 2016:6. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1582750
doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1582750
Teoh KH, Winson DMG, James SH, Jones A, Howes J, Davies PR, Ahuja S (2016) Magnetic controlled growing rods for early-onset scoliosis: a 4-year follow-up. Spine J 16:S34–S39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.12.098
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.12.098
pubmed: 26844638
pmcid: 26844638
Cheung JPY, Yiu K, Kwan K, Cheung KMC (2018) Mean 6-year follow-up of magnetically controlled growing rod patients with early onset scoliosis: a glimpse of what happens to graduates. Neurosurgery. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyy270
doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyy270
Thakar C, Kieser DC, Mardare M, Haleem S, Fairbank J, Nnadi C (2018) Systematic review of the complications associated with magnetically controlled growing rods for the treatment of early onset scoliosis. Eur Spine J 27:2062–2071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5590-4
doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5590-4
pubmed: 29675673
pmcid: 29675673
Hosseini P, Akbarnia BA, Nguyen S, Pawelek J, Emans J, Sturm PF, Sponseller PD (2018) Construct levels to anchored levels ratio and rod diameter are associated with implant-related complications in traditional growing rods. Spine Deform 6:320–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2017.11.004
doi: 10.1016/j.jspd.2017.11.004
pubmed: 29735144
Barton C, Noshchenko A, Patel V, Cain C, Kleck C, Burger E (2015) Risk factors for rod fracture after posterior correction of adult spinal deformity with osteotomy: a retrospective case-series. Scoliosis. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-015-0056-5
doi: 10.1186/s13013-015-0056-5
pubmed: 26543498
pmcid: 4634788
Yang JS, Sponseller PD, Thompson GH, Akbarnia BA, Emans JB, Yazici M, Skaggs DL, Shah SA, Salari P, Poe-Kochert C (2011) Growing rod fractures: risk factors and opportunities for prevention. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:1639–1644. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822a982f
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822a982f
Lindsey C, Deviren V, Xu Z, Yeh R-F, Puttlitz CM (2006) The effects of rod contouring on spinal construct fatigue strength. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1680–1687. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000224177.97846.00
doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000224177.97846.00
Welborn M, Bouton D, Krajbich JI (2018) Preop halo gravity traction (HGT) associated with decreased implant complications in MCGR. Spine Deform 6:800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2018.09.021
doi: 10.1016/j.jspd.2018.09.021
Watanabe K, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Kim YJ, Hensley M, Koester L (2010) Efficacy of perioperative halo-gravity traction for treatment of severe scoliosis (≥100°). J Orthop Sci 15:720–730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-010-1523-8
doi: 10.1007/s00776-010-1523-8
pubmed: 21116888
Yang JS, Sponseller PD, Thompson GH, Akbarnia BA, Emans JB, Yazici M, Skaggs DL, Shah SA, Salari P, Poe-Kochert C, Growing Spine Study Group (2011) Growing rod fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:1639–1644. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822a982f
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822a982f
Hosseini P, Pawelek JB, Nguyen S, Thompson GH, Shah SA, Flynn JM, Dormans JP, Akbarnia BA (2017) Rod fracture and lengthening intervals in traditional growing rods: is there a relationship? Eur Spine J 26:1690–1695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4786-8
doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4786-8
pubmed: 27761645
Thompson GH, Akbarnia BA, Campbell RM Jr (2007) Growing rod techniques in early-onset scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop. 27:354–361 (OD-2007/04/07. internal-pdf:/Thompson, G.H. et al_Growing Rod Techniques in EOS_JPO 2007.pdf)
doi: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e3180333eea