Literature DB >> 27328123

Implant Complications After Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods for Early Onset Scoliosis: A Multicenter Retrospective Review.

Edmund Choi1, Burt Yaszay, Gregory Mundis, Pooria Hosseini, Jeff Pawelek, Ahmet Alanay, Haluk Berk, Kenneth Cheung, Gokhan Demirkiran, John Ferguson, Tiziana Greggi, Ilkka Helenius, Guido La Rosa, Alpaslan Senkoylu, Behrooz A Akbarnia.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Traditional growing rods have a reported wound and implant complication rate as high as 58%. It is unclear whether the use of magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGR) will affect this rate. This study was performed to characterize surgical complications following MCGR in early onset scoliosis.
METHODS: A multicenter retrospective review of MCGR cases was performed. Inclusion criteria were: (1) diagnosis of early onset scoliosis of any etiology; (2) 10 years and younger at time of index surgery; (3) preoperative major curve size >30 degrees; (4) preoperative thoracic spine height <22 cm. Complications were categorized as wound related and instrumentation related. Complications were also classified as early (<6 mo from index surgery) versus late (>6 mo). Distraction technique and interval of distraction was surgeon preference without standardization across sites.
RESULTS: Fifty-four MCGR patients met inclusion criteria. There were 30 primary and 24 conversion procedures. Mean age at initial surgery was 7.3 years (range, 2.4 to 11 y), and mean duration of follow-up 19.4 months. Twenty-one (38.8%) of 54 patients had at least 1 complication. Fifteen (27.8%) had at least 1 revision surgery. Six (11.1%) had broken rods (2 to 4.5 and 4 to 5.5 mm rods); two 5.5 mm rods failed early (4 mo) and 4 late (mean=14.5 mo). Six (11.1%) patients experienced 1 episode of lack or loss of lengthening, of which 4 patients subsequently lengthened. Seven patients (13.0%) had either proximal or distal fixation-related complication at average of 8.4 months. Two patients (3.7%) had infections requiring incision and drainage; 1 early (2 wk) with wound drainage and 1 late (8 mo). The late case required removal of one of the dual rods.
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that compared with traditional growing rods, MCGR has a lower infection rate (3.7% vs. 11.1%). MCGR does not appear to prevent common implant-related complications such as rod or foundation failure. The long-term implication remains to be determined. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27328123     DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000000803

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pediatr Orthop        ISSN: 0271-6798            Impact factor:   2.324


  23 in total

1.  Magnetically controlled growing rod in early onset scoliosis: a 30-case multicenter study.

Authors:  Julie Lebon; Cécile Batailler; Matthieu Wargny; Elie Choufani; Philippe Violas; Damien Fron; Jerry Kieffer; Franck Accadbled; Vincent Cunin; Jérôme Sales De Gauzy
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-12-31       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  No free lunch in orthopedics.

Authors:  Benjamin A Goldberg; Marius M Scarlat
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Systematic review of the complications associated with magnetically controlled growing rods for the treatment of early onset scoliosis.

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

4.  Is rod diameter associated with the rate of rod fracture in patients treated with magnetically controlled growing rods?

Authors:  Benjamin D Roye; Gerard Marciano; Hiroko Matsumoto; Michael W Fields; Megan Campbell; Klane K White; Jeffrey Sawyer; John T Smith; Scott Luhmann; Peter Sturm; Paul Sponseller; Michael G Vitale
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2020-06-19

5.  How frequent should the radiographic examination be to monitor magnetically controlled growing rods? A retrospective look two to seven years postoperatively.

Authors:  Altug Yucekul; Hatice Tanriover; Kadir Abul; Ashfaq Ahmed; Tais Zulemyan; Caglar Yilgor; Ahmet Alanay
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Rod fracture and lengthening intervals in traditional growing rods: is there a relationship?

Authors:  Pooria Hosseini; Jeff B Pawelek; Stacie Nguyen; George H Thompson; Suken A Shah; John M Flynn; John P Dormans; Behrooz A Akbarnia; Growing Spine Study Group
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Understanding the implant performance of magnetically controlled growing spine rods: a review article.

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

8.  [Nonfusion procedures in pediatric scoliosis].

Authors:  Sebastian Braun; Jacques Müller-Broich; Panagiotis Diaremes; Chri Stoph Fleege; Andrea Meurer
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 1.087

9.  Magnetically controlled growing rods in the treatment of early onset scoliosis: a single centre experience of 44 patients with mean follow-up of 4.1 years.

Authors:  Ahmed Abdelaal; Sudarshan Munigangaiah; Jayesh Trivedi; Neil Davidson
Journal:  Bone Jt Open       Date:  2020-11-02

10.  Surgical site infections in early onset scoliosis: what are long-term outcomes in patients with traditional growing rods?

Authors:  Anne Marie Dumaine; James Yu; Connie Poe-Kochert; George H Thompson; R Justin Mistovich
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2021-09-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.