A comparison of the post-fusion outcome of patients with early-onset scoliosis treated with traditional and magnetically controlled growing rods

Abstract

Aims The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients with early-onset scoliosis (EOS), who had undergone spinal fusion after distraction-based spinal growth modulation using either traditional growing rods (TGRs) or magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGRs). Methods We undertook a retrospective review of skeletally mature patients who had undergone fusion for an EOS, which had been previously treated using either TGRs or MCGRs. Measured outcomes included sequential coronal T1 to S1 height and major curve (Cobb) angle on plain radiographs and any complications requiring unplanned surgery before final fusion. Results We reviewed 43 patients (63% female) with a mean age of 6.4 years (SD 2.6) at the index procedure, and 12.2 years (SD 2.2) at final fusion. Their mean follow-up was 8.1 years (SD 3.4). A total of 16 patients were treated with MCGRs and 27 with TGRs. The mean number of distractions was 7.5 in the MCGR group and ten in the TGR group (p = 0.471). The mean interval between distractions was 3.4 months in the MCGR group and 8.6 months in the TGR group (p < 0.001). The mean Cobb angle had improved by 25.1° in the MCGR group and 23.2° in TGR group (p = 0.664) at final follow-up. The mean coronal T1 to S1 height had increased by 16% in the MCGR group and 32.9% in TGR group (p = 0.001), although the mean T1 to S1 height achieved at final follow-up was similar in both. Unplanned operations were needed in 43.8% of the MCGR group and 51.2% of TGR group (p = 0.422). Conclusion In this retrospective, single-centre review, there were no significant differences in major curve correction or gain in spinal height at fusion. Although the number of planned procedures were fewer in patients with MCGRs, the rates of implant-related complications needing unplanned revision surgery were similar in the two groups. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):257–264.