Kar H Teoh1, Daniel M G Winson2, Stuart H James2, Alwyn Jones2, John Howes2, Paul R Davies2, Sashin Ahuja2. 1. Welsh Centre for Spinal Surgery & Trauma, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF10 2FF, United Kingdom. Electronic address: karhao@gmail.com. 2. Welsh Centre for Spinal Surgery & Trauma, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF10 2FF, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The main advantage cited for the use of the magnetic controlled growing rod (MCGR) system over the conventional growing rod (CGR) in early-onset scoliosis is avoiding repeated invasive surgical procedures for lengthening, thus reducing, complications. PURPOSE: The study aimed to evaluate the complications of the MCGR system against the CGR system in our center. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: This is a retrospective case control series. PATIENT SAMPLE: The sample includes patients with early-onset scoliosis treated with MCGR or CGR. OUTCOME MEASURES: Complications and unplanned return to theater were the outcome measures. RESULTS: Of the 37 patients (MCGR, N=10; CGR, N=27) in our cohort, 28 patients (76%) had at least one complication. Taking into account the follow-up period, MCGR had a higher complication rate than CGR group (0.32 complication per patient per year vs. 0.15 complication per patient per year). The use of MCGR was associated with a lower risk of deep infection (odds ratio [OR]: 0.22; p=.22) and superficial infection (OR: 0.07, p=.017) but increased risk of metalwork problems (OR: 4.67; p=.045) and unplanned return to theater (OR: 2.92; p=.05) compared with CGR. CONCLUSIONS: Although MCGR has a lower rate of both deep and superficial infections when compared with CGR, it does not completely avoid repeated invasive surgical procedures as previously suggested. It does have a significant increased risk of metalwork problems and unplanned return to theater.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The main advantage cited for the use of the magnetic controlled growing rod (MCGR) system over the conventional growing rod (CGR) in early-onset scoliosis is avoiding repeated invasive surgical procedures for lengthening, thus reducing, complications. PURPOSE: The study aimed to evaluate the complications of the MCGR system against the CGR system in our center. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: This is a retrospective case control series. PATIENT SAMPLE: The sample includes patients with early-onset scoliosis treated with MCGR or CGR. OUTCOME MEASURES: Complications and unplanned return to theater were the outcome measures. RESULTS: Of the 37 patients (MCGR, N=10; CGR, N=27) in our cohort, 28 patients (76%) had at least one complication. Taking into account the follow-up period, MCGR had a higher complication rate than CGR group (0.32 complication per patient per year vs. 0.15 complication per patient per year). The use of MCGR was associated with a lower risk of deep infection (odds ratio [OR]: 0.22; p=.22) and superficial infection (OR: 0.07, p=.017) but increased risk of metalwork problems (OR: 4.67; p=.045) and unplanned return to theater (OR: 2.92; p=.05) compared with CGR. CONCLUSIONS: Although MCGR has a lower rate of both deep and superficial infections when compared with CGR, it does not completely avoid repeated invasive surgical procedures as previously suggested. It does have a significant increased risk of metalwork problems and unplanned return to theater.
Authors: Kar Hao Teoh; Abdul Nazeer Moideen; Kausik Mukherjee; Sridhar Kamath; Stuart H James; Alwyn Jones; John Howes; Paul R Davies; Sashin Ahuja Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Chrishan Thakar; David Christopher Kieser; Mihai Mardare; Shahnawaz Haleem; Jeremy Fairbank; Colin Nnadi Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Martina Tognini; Harry Hothi; Elisabetta Dal Gal; Masood Shafafy; Colin Nnadi; Stewart Tucker; Johann Henckel; Alister Hart Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 3.134