The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of surgery
using growing rods in patients with severe A review of a multicentre EOS database identified 107 children
with severe EOS (major curve ≥ 90°) treated with growing rods before
the age of ten years with a minimum follow-up of two years and three
or more lengthening procedures. From the same database, 107 matched
controls with moderate EOS were identified.Aims
Patients and Methods
The magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) system allows growth maintenance without the risk of anaesthesia, implant and wound complications associated with repeated surgeries. This is a medium-term report of the complications of MCGR from a multicentre study. Twenty-six patients from 6 spine institutes that are part of a multicentre study with prospectively collected data of minimum 24 months follow-up were assessed. Pre-operative, immediate post-operative and most recent spine radiographs were reviewed to measure the Cobb angle and the rod lengthening distance. The causes and any associated risk factors for re-operations were examined. Eleven patients required re-operation within the follow-up period, with a mean time to re-operation of 17 months after the initial surgery. Five were due to failure of rod distractions; 3 were due to failure of proximal foundation implants; 2 were due to rod breakage; and one case of superficial wound infection with failure of proximal fixation. Proximal junctional kyphosis occurred in 5 patients. Three had proximal anchor dislodgement and all five constructs were revised. This is the largest series with the longest follow-up to date. Our series show that the perception that using MCGR may reduce the frequency of re-operations may not be entirely true. This is the first report to examine the need for re-operation after MCGR implantation, and highlights the inherent risks of any surgical treatment in this group of patients despite the advantages of this new implant. Longer-term studies and comparisons with traditional growing rods are required.
We prospectively examined the effect of pedicle screw placement at a young age (<5 years) for early-onset spinal deformity on the growth and development of pedicles and the spinal canal. Patients with early-onset deformity who received pedicle screw placement before the age of 5 years and had preoperative and final follow-up axial imaging were included. To increase sample size, patients who had the same criteria but with no preoperative axial images were also included. Anteroposterior and transverse diameters of the canal and pedicle length were measured on axial images cutting through the middle of the pedicle (figures 1 and 2).Introduction
Methods
