Traditional versus magnetically controlled growing rods in early onset scoliosis surgical treatment.

PURPOSE

Growing rod surgeries are common methods in the treatment of early onset scoliosis. Magnetic growing rod (MGR) surgery, in particular, has become more widespread in the last 10 years. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of traditional and magnetically controlled growing rod techniques on efficacy, safety, spinal growth, and lung development.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was made of 24 TGR and 17 MGR patients. Inclusion criteria were patients aged < 10 years, curvature > 40° or a progression of > 10° in the 4-6 month follow-up for curves between 25 and 40°.

RESULTS

There were 9 males and 15 females in the TGR cohort and 7 males and 10 females in the MGR cohort. The mean age at first surgery was 6.1 years and 7.1 years, respectively. Major curve Cobb angles of TGR were preop. 51.5°, postop. 21.4° and 18.1° at the final follow-up. In the MGR cohort, these values were 60.4°, 41.8°, and 36.4°, respectively. The mean T1-S1 lengthening velocity was calculated as 1.12 cm/year (0.9318 mm/month) in the TGR group and 1.27 cm/year (1.0571 mm/month) in the MGR group. In the TGR cohort, a total of 99 procedures were performed as 24 initial surgeries and 75 additional procedures (5 lengthening during unplanned surgery due to complications; 4 revision, 1 debridement). In the MRG cohort, a total of 25 surgical procedures were performed as 17 initial surgeries and 7 additional procedures (3 debridements, 5 revisions).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed that the TGR system provided better correction in the coronal plane and was superior in kyphosis restoration than the MGR system. Both methods were successful in lengthening, but complication rates were slightly higher in the MGR cohort. The most common complication was the pullout of the proximal anchors, and this was more common in the MGR. Both TGR and MGR were found to be effective treatments. Lengthening without surgery is a significant advantage of the MGR system, but it has a high revision rate, and Cobb angle correction was found to be less effective than with TGR.