Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods Graduation: Deformity Control with High Complication Rate.
Journal
Spine
ISSN: 1528-1159
Titre abrégé: Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7610646
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Oct 2021
15 Oct 2021
Historique:
entrez:
24
9
2021
pubmed:
25
9
2021
medline:
29
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A multicenter retrospective review of consecutive series of patients. Long-term experience with using the magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGR) to treat patients with deformity in the growing spine to the conclusion of treatment with posterior spine fusion. MCGR treatment for growing spine gained popularity with paucity of long-term follow up data. We hypothesized that final fusion might be more effective in bringing additional correction of the spine deformity after treatment with MCGR than that reported after traditional growing rods (TGR) due to less scarring and auto-fusion. Retrospective review of 47 patients with varied etiology, treated between 2011 and 2017 which graduated treatment were followed in five academic medical centers for average of 50 months (range, 10-88). The initial mean coronal deformity of 69.6° (95% CI 65-74) was corrected to 40° (95% CI 36-40) immediately after the MCGR implantation but progressed to 52.8° (95% CI 46-59) prior to the final surgery (P < 0.01). Nevertheless, thoracic spine growth (T1-T12 height) improved from 187.3 mm (95% CI 179-195) following index surgery to 208.9 mm (95% CI 199-218) prior to final fusion (P < 0.01). Significant correction and spinal length were obtained at final fusion, but metallosis was a frequent observation (47%, 22/47). The average growth rate was 0.5 mm/month (95% CI 0.3-0.6). The overall complication rate within our cohort was 66% (31/47) with 45% (21/47) of unplanned returns to the operating theater. 32% (15/47) of the patients had an implant related complication. Unplanned surgery was highly correlated with thoracic kyphosis greater than 40° (OR 5.42 95% CI 1.3-23). Treatment of growing spine deformities with MCGR provides adequate control of spine deformity it is comparable to previously published data about TGR. The overall high complications rate over time and specifically implant related complications.Level of Evidence: 4.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
A multicenter retrospective review of consecutive series of patients.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
Long-term experience with using the magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGR) to treat patients with deformity in the growing spine to the conclusion of treatment with posterior spine fusion.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
BACKGROUND
MCGR treatment for growing spine gained popularity with paucity of long-term follow up data. We hypothesized that final fusion might be more effective in bringing additional correction of the spine deformity after treatment with MCGR than that reported after traditional growing rods (TGR) due to less scarring and auto-fusion.
METHODS
METHODS
Retrospective review of 47 patients with varied etiology, treated between 2011 and 2017 which graduated treatment were followed in five academic medical centers for average of 50 months (range, 10-88).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The initial mean coronal deformity of 69.6° (95% CI 65-74) was corrected to 40° (95% CI 36-40) immediately after the MCGR implantation but progressed to 52.8° (95% CI 46-59) prior to the final surgery (P < 0.01). Nevertheless, thoracic spine growth (T1-T12 height) improved from 187.3 mm (95% CI 179-195) following index surgery to 208.9 mm (95% CI 199-218) prior to final fusion (P < 0.01). Significant correction and spinal length were obtained at final fusion, but metallosis was a frequent observation (47%, 22/47). The average growth rate was 0.5 mm/month (95% CI 0.3-0.6). The overall complication rate within our cohort was 66% (31/47) with 45% (21/47) of unplanned returns to the operating theater. 32% (15/47) of the patients had an implant related complication. Unplanned surgery was highly correlated with thoracic kyphosis greater than 40° (OR 5.42 95% CI 1.3-23).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment of growing spine deformities with MCGR provides adequate control of spine deformity it is comparable to previously published data about TGR. The overall high complications rate over time and specifically implant related complications.Level of Evidence: 4.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34559751
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004044
pii: 00007632-202110150-00013
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
E1105-E1112Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Bess S, Akbarnia BA, Thompson GH, et al. Complications of growing-rod treatment for early-onset scoliosis: analysis of one hundred and forty patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92:2533–2543.
Akbarnia BA, Cheung K, Noordeen H, et al. Next generation of growth-sparing techniques: preliminary clinical results of a magnetically controlled growing rod in 14 patients with early-onset scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38:665–670.
Dannawi Z, Altaf F, Harshavardhana NS, et al. Early results of a remotely-operated magnetic growth rod in early-onset scoliosis. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B:75–80.
Akbarnia BA, Pawelek JB, Cheung KM, et al. Traditional growing rods versus magnetically controlled growing rods for the surgical treatment of early-onset scoliosis: a case-matched 2-year study. Spine Deform 2014; 2:493–497.
Teoh KH, Winson DM, James SH, et al. Do magnetic growing rods have lower complication rates compared with conventional growing rods? Spine J 2016; 16: (4 suppl): S40–S44.
Cheung KM, Cheung JP, Samartzis D, et al. Magnetically controlled growing rods for severe spinal curvature in young children: a prospective case series. Lancet 2012; 379:1967–1974.
Thakar C, Kieser DC, Mardare M, et al. Systematic review of the complications associated with magnetically controlled growing rods for the treatment of early onset scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2018; 27:2062–2071.
Doany ME, Olgun ZD, Kinikli GI, et al. Health-related quality of life in early-onset scoliosis patients treated surgically: eosq scores in traditional growing rod versus magnetically controlled growing rods. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018; 43:148–153.
Bekmez S, Afandiyev A, Dede O, et al. Is magnetically controlled growing rod the game changer in early-onset scoliosis? A preliminary report. J Pediatr Orthop 2019; 39:e195–e200.
Bauer JM, Yorgova P, Neiss G, et al. Early onset scoliosis: is there an improvement in quality of life with conversion from traditional growing rods to magnetically controlled growing rods? J Pediatr Orthop 2019; 39:e284–e288.
Teoh KH, von Ruhland C, Evans SL, et al. Metallosis following implantation of magnetically controlled growing rods in the treatment of scoliosis: a case series. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B:1662–1667.
Joyce TJ, Smith SL, Rushton PRP, et al. Analysis of explanted magnetically controlled growing rods from seven UK spinal centers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018; 43:E16–E22.
Rushton PRP, Siddique I, Crawford R, et al. Magnetically controlled growing rods in the treatment of early-onset scoliosis: a note of caution. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B:708–713.
Cahill PJ, Marvil S, Cuddihy L, et al. Autofusion in the immature spine treated with growing rods. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35:E1199–E1203.
Flynn JM, Tomlinson LA, Pawelek J, et al. Growing-rod graduates: lessons learned from ninety-nine patients who completed lengthening. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95:1745–1750.
Helenius IJ, Sponseller PD, McClung A, et al. Surgical and health-related quality-of-life outcomes of growing rod “Graduates” with severe versus moderate early-onset scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2019; 44:698–706.
Cheung JPY, Yiu K, Kwan K, et al. Mean 6-year follow-up of magnetically controlled growing rod patients with early onset scoliosis: a glimpse of what happens to graduates. Neurosurgery 2019; 84:1112–1123.
Smith JT, Johnston C, Skaggs D, et al. A new classification system to report complications in growing spine surgery: a multicenter consensus study. J Pediatr Orthop 2015; 35:798–803.
Karol LA, Johnston C, Mladenov K, et al. Pulmonary function following early thoracic fusion in non-neuromuscular scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90:1272–1281.
Subramanian T, Ahmad A, Mardare DM, et al. A six-year observational study of 31 children with early-onset scoliosis treated using magnetically controlled growing rods with a minimum follow-up of two years. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B:1187–1200.
Wijdicks SPJ, Tromp IN, Yazici M, et al. A comparison of growth among growth-friendly systems for scoliosis: a systematic review. Spine J 2019; 19:789–799.
Upasani VV, Parvaresh KC, Pawelek JB, et al. Age at initiation and deformity magnitude influence complication rates of surgical treatment with traditional growing rods in early-onset scoliosis. Spine Deform 2016; 4:344–350.
Sankar WN, Skaggs DL, Yazici M, et al. Lengthening of dual growing rods and the law of diminishing returns. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36:806–809.
Hung CW, Vitale MG, Samdani A, et al. Outcomes of primary and conversion magnetically controlled growth rods are different at two-year follow-up: results of North American release. Spine Deform 2019; 7:829–835.
Keskinen H, Helenius I, Nnadi C, et al. Preliminary comparison of primary and conversion surgery with magnetically controlled growing rods in children with early onset scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2016; 25:3294–3300.
Schroerlucke SR, Akbarnia BA, Pawelek JB, et al. How does thoracic kyphosis affect patient outcomes in growing rod surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37:1303–1309.
Teoh KH, Winson DM, James SH, et al. Magnetic controlled growing rods for early-onset scoliosis: a 4-year follow-up. Spine J 2016; 16: (4 suppl): S34–S39.
Elsebai HB, Yazici M, Thompson GH, et al. Safety and efficacy of growing rod technique for pediatric congenital spinal deformities. J Pediatr Orthop 2011; 31:1–5.
Yilgor C, Efendiyev A, Akbiyik F, et al. Metal ion release during growth-friendly instrumentation for early-onset scoliosis: a preliminary study. Spine Deform 2018; 6:48–53.