98 / 225
98
· DOS Abstracts
A single magnetic controlled growing rod can drive
double growing rod systems with apical control in EOS
Simon Toftgaard Skov, Sebastiaan P.J. Wijdicks, Cody Bünger , René M. Castelein
, Haisheng Li, Moyo C. Kruyt
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital; Department
of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Clinic Utrecht, The Netherlands;
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital; Department
of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Clinic Utrecht, The Netherlands;
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital; Department
of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Clinic Utrecht, The Netherlands
Background:
The magnetic controlled growing rod (MCGR) application in se-
vere early onset scoliosis has increased over the last years worldwide, as they
allow non-invasive lengthening. Disadvantages of the MCGR are the high initial
costs and lack of apical control. To overcome these, we combined a single con-
cave MCGR with a contralateral sliding rod system with apical control.
Purpose / Aim of Study:
To investigate the feasibility, 3D correction, spinal
growth and complications of this new MCGR-hybrid principle.
Materials and Methods:
A consecutive series of patients treated with this
new principle at two European spine centers were evaluated retrospectively,
including all patients operated between Sept. 2014 and June 2016. Demo-
graphics and clinical parameters were recorded from patient files. Length, Cobb
angles and rotation (Nash-Moe method), were measured on standard digital
radiographs.
Findings / Results:
Eighteen patients with a median age at treatment of 9
years with a median follow-up time of 24 months (range 11- 31). The frontal
Cobb angle was reduced from mean 59 preoperative to 30 post- operatively
and was maintained throughout follow-up. Rotation of the apical vertebra im-
proved frommean 27 to 18 post-operatively but increased slightly to 20 during
follow-up. Kyphosis decreased and lordosis was largely unaltered. Instrumented
spine growth was maintained at a mean 12mm/year. One child had surgical re-
vision due to progressive trunk shift. The same child fell and acquired T1 & T2
fractures that were treated conservatively. Another child is planned for revision
due to MCGR distraction failure.
Conclusions:
These early results show satisfactory 3D correction and main-
tained spinal growth with few complications. This new apical control single
growth engine approach seems cost-effective in providing 3D correction and
to maintain spinal growth in EOS.
No conflicts of interest reported
50.