4.5 Article

Early results of a remotely-operated magnetic growth rod in early-onset scoliosis

期刊

BONE & JOINT JOURNAL
卷 95B, 期 1, 页码 75-80

出版社

BRITISH EDITORIAL SOC BONE JOINT SURGERY
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B1.29565

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conventional growing rods are the most commonly used distraction-based devices in the treatment of progressive early-onset scoliosis. This technique requires repeated lengthenings with the patient anaesthetised in the operating theatre. We describe the outcomes and complications of using a non-invasive magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) in children with early-onset scoliosis. Lengthening is performed on an outpatient basis using an external remote control with the patient awake. Between November 2009 and March 2011, 34 children with a mean age of eight years (5 to 12) underwent treatment. The mean length of follow-up was 15 months (12 to 18). In total, 22 children were treated with dual rod constructs and 12 with a single rod. The mean number of distractions per patient was 4.8 (3 to 6). The mean pre-operative Cobb angle was 69 degrees (46 degrees to 108 degrees); this was corrected to a mean 47 degrees (28 degrees to 91 degrees) post-operatively. The mean Cobb angle at final review was 41 degrees (27 degrees to 86 degrees). The mean pre-operative distance from Ti to Si was 304 mm (243 to 380) and increased to 335 mm (253 to 400) in the immediate postoperative period. At final review the mean distance from Ti to Si had increased to 348 mm (260 to 420). Two patients developed a superficial wound infection and a further two patients in the single rod group developed a loss of distraction. In the dual rod group, one patient had pull-out of a hook and one developed prominent metalwork. Two patients had a rod breakage; one patient in the single rod group and one patient in the dual rod group. Our early results show that the MCGR is safe and effective in the treatment of progressive early-onset scoliosis with the avoidance of repeated surgical lengthenings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据