Outcome of distraction-based growing rods at graduation: a comparison of traditional growing rods and magnetically controlled growing rods.

IF 1.6 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Spine deformity Pub Date : 2024-09-23 DOI:10.1007/s43390-024-00969-x
Jwalant Mehta, Suken Shah, Harry Hothi, Martina Tognini, Adrian Gardner, Charles E Johnston, Robert Murphy, George Thompson, Paul Sponseller, John Emans, Francisco Javier-Grueso, Peter Strum
{"title":"Outcome of distraction-based growing rods at graduation: a comparison of traditional growing rods and magnetically controlled growing rods.","authors":"Jwalant Mehta, Suken Shah, Harry Hothi, Martina Tognini, Adrian Gardner, Charles E Johnston, Robert Murphy, George Thompson, Paul Sponseller, John Emans, Francisco Javier-Grueso, Peter Strum","doi":"10.1007/s43390-024-00969-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Distraction-based growing rods have been considered as an alternative surgical option for the operative treatment of EOS. TGR has been challenged by MCGR, which is reported to have the advantage of non-invasive lengthening with fewer planned returns to theatre. This study explores the radiographic outcomes, Unplanned Returns to the Operating Room (UPROR) and complication profile of both the procedures at the end of the planned growing rod treatment with either TGR or MCGR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included all the EOS cases from the PSSG database that underwent either TGR or MCGR with spine-based proximal anchors, followed up to the time of graduation. Any crossover or hybrid procedures were excluded. 549 patients (409 TGR and 140 MCGR) were eligible for review. We measured the coronal curve magnitude, Kyphosis, T1-T12, T1-S1 and L1-S1 lengths at 4 time points (before and after the index surgery and before and after the definitive surgery).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The TGR group were slightly younger at the time of the index procedure (7 years for TGR vs. 8.5 years for MCGR, p < 0.001). We noted an improvement in all radiological parameters after the growing rod implantation. The spinal lengths increased through the lengthening period, while the coronal curve magnitude and the kyphosis increased. The kyphosis normalized following the final fusion, the coronal curve magnitude reduced further with a further increase in spinal lengths. The final follow-up from the time of the index implantation to the definitive surgery was 5.1 years (IQR 3.8) in TGR and 3.5 years (IQR 1.65) in the MCGR groups. The total number of complications was fewer in the MCGR group. The overall risk of UPROR was lower in the MCGR group and implant breakage was less in the MCGR group by 4.7 times.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study confirms the equivalence of both the distraction-based growing rods systems from the radiological stand-point, during the lengthening phase and at the time of the definitive surgery. The TGR was more kyphogenic during the lengthening period. The complications and UPROR were fewer in the MCGR groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":21796,"journal":{"name":"Spine deformity","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine deformity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-024-00969-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Distraction-based growing rods have been considered as an alternative surgical option for the operative treatment of EOS. TGR has been challenged by MCGR, which is reported to have the advantage of non-invasive lengthening with fewer planned returns to theatre. This study explores the radiographic outcomes, Unplanned Returns to the Operating Room (UPROR) and complication profile of both the procedures at the end of the planned growing rod treatment with either TGR or MCGR.

Methods: We included all the EOS cases from the PSSG database that underwent either TGR or MCGR with spine-based proximal anchors, followed up to the time of graduation. Any crossover or hybrid procedures were excluded. 549 patients (409 TGR and 140 MCGR) were eligible for review. We measured the coronal curve magnitude, Kyphosis, T1-T12, T1-S1 and L1-S1 lengths at 4 time points (before and after the index surgery and before and after the definitive surgery).

Results: The TGR group were slightly younger at the time of the index procedure (7 years for TGR vs. 8.5 years for MCGR, p < 0.001). We noted an improvement in all radiological parameters after the growing rod implantation. The spinal lengths increased through the lengthening period, while the coronal curve magnitude and the kyphosis increased. The kyphosis normalized following the final fusion, the coronal curve magnitude reduced further with a further increase in spinal lengths. The final follow-up from the time of the index implantation to the definitive surgery was 5.1 years (IQR 3.8) in TGR and 3.5 years (IQR 1.65) in the MCGR groups. The total number of complications was fewer in the MCGR group. The overall risk of UPROR was lower in the MCGR group and implant breakage was less in the MCGR group by 4.7 times.

Conclusions: This study confirms the equivalence of both the distraction-based growing rods systems from the radiological stand-point, during the lengthening phase and at the time of the definitive surgery. The TGR was more kyphogenic during the lengthening period. The complications and UPROR were fewer in the MCGR groups.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
分心式生长棒在毕业时的效果:传统生长棒与磁控生长棒的比较。
导言:牵引生长棒一直被认为是手术治疗 EOS 的替代手术方案。TGR受到了MCGR的挑战,据报道,MCGR具有非侵入性延长、计划返回手术室次数少的优点。本研究探讨了在使用 TGR 或 MCGR 的计划生长棒治疗结束后,两种手术的放射学结果、非计划重返手术室(UPROR)和并发症情况:我们纳入了PSSG数据库中所有使用脊柱近端锚进行TGR或MCGR的EOS病例,并随访至毕业。任何交叉或混合手术均排除在外。549例患者(409例TGR和140例MCGR)符合复查条件。我们测量了4个时间点(指数手术前后和最终手术前后)的冠状曲线幅度、后凸、T1-T12、T1-S1和L1-S1长度:结果:TGR组患者在进行指数手术时年龄稍小(TGR为7岁,MCGR为8.5岁,P 结论:该研究证实了TGR和MCGR两种手术方法的等效性:这项研究证实,从放射学角度来看,两种牵引生长棒系统在延长阶段和最终手术时的效果相当。在延长阶段,TGR的骺线更长。MCGR组的并发症和UPROR较少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
18.80%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Spine Deformity the official journal of the?Scoliosis Research Society is a peer-refereed publication to disseminate knowledge on basic science and clinical research into the?etiology?biomechanics?treatment?methods and outcomes of all types of?spinal deformities. The international members of the Editorial Board provide a worldwide perspective for the journal's area of interest.The?journal?will enhance the mission of the Society which is to foster the optimal care of all patients with?spine?deformities worldwide. Articles published in?Spine Deformity?are Medline indexed in PubMed.? The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical and basic research. Spine Deformity will only publish studies that have institutional review board (IRB) or similar ethics committee approval for human and animal studies and have strictly observed these guidelines. The minimum follow-up period for follow-up clinical studies is 24 months.
期刊最新文献
Human spinal height growth: a description of normal spine growth patterns and adult spine height prediction from a longitudinal cohort. Making wrong site surgery a "never event" in spinal deformity surgery by use of a "landmark vertebra" to eliminate variability in identifying a target vertebral level. Magnetically controlled growing rods increase 3D true spine length in idiopathic early onset scoliosis patients: results from a multicenter study. Factors contributing to severe scoliosis after open chest surgery for congenital heart disease: a case-control analysis. Zones where reduced implant density leads to correction loss after scoliosis surgery for Lenke 1A adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a multicenter study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1