190 / 225
190
· DOS Abstracts
Two double rod systems with apical control in EOS;
Magec growth engine (MCGR) versus open interval
distraction: Early 3D correction and spinal growth
Simon Toftgaard Skov, Sebastiaan P.J. Wijdicks, Moyo C. Kruyt , Li Haisheng,
René M. Castelein , Jan H.D. Rölfing , Ebbe S. Hansen , Kristian Høy , Peter Helmig,
Cody Bünger
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital
Background:
The application of MCGR in severe EOS has increased over the
last years worldwide.
Purpose / Aim of Study:
Our aim was to compare non-surgical 3- month
interval MCGR lengthening to 6- month interval intraoperative manual length-
ening in EOS; focusing on spinal growth and 3D correction.
Materials and Methods:
Two cohorts of each 18 children were analyzed. The
MCGR-hybrid-cohort, median age 9 (6.4-15.8) received a new MCGR hybrid
principle, using a single MCGR to drive concave distraction combined with an
apical control passive sliding rod construct on the convexity, median follow-up
1.3 years (0.5-2.1). The second cohort, median age 10 (4.5- 14.8) received a
similar apical control construct (the CB system), using conventional open surgi-
cal distraction, median follow-up 1,5 years (0.9-1.9).
Findings / Results:
Frontal Cobb angle improved in both groups; from mean
64 to 31 after MCGR-Hybrid, (p<0.01), and from mean 77 to 38 after con-
ventional technique, (p<0.01). This 51% initial correction after MCGR-Hybrid
vs. 49% after conventional technique was maintained in both groups. The mean
apical vertebral rotation (Nash-Moe method) improved significantly in both
groups, but was partially lost. There was a significant decrease in thoracic ky-
phosis from 27 to 20 after MCGR-hybrid and from 33 to 17 after conventional
technique, and largely unchanged lordosis. T1-S1 spine growth rate was 11
mm/year in the MCGR-Hybrid-group vs. 7mm/year in the conventional-group,
(NS).
Conclusions:
We demonstrated significant early 3D scoliosis correction by
double rod systems with apical control. Spinal growth seemed to be superior
following short interval MCGR lengthening. This may underline the negative ef-
fect of posterior tethering following long interval distraction.
No conflicts of interest reported
142.