Analysis of 280 Magnetically Controlled Growing Rod Lengthenings Comparing External Remote Control Readouts and Radiographic Measurements: Impact of Patient and Deformity Factors

Comparative efficacy and complications of single and dual growing rods for early-onset scoliosis: an updated meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This updated meta-analysis aimed to compare single and dual growing rods, including both traditional growing rod and magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) used in the treatment of early-onset scoliosis (EOS) with regard to deformity correction, spinal growth, and complications.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using articles extracted from PubMed, EMBASE databases, and Cochrane Library databases. Only articles reporting the complications and the imaging parameters before and after growing rods in the patients diagnosed with EOS were included. We extracted and statistically analyzed the data deemed relevant for this study, and used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the risk of bias in each study. Data synthesis and statistical analyses were performed using R software.

RESULTS

Fifteen eligible articles containing 409 participants (n = 185, single growing rods; n = 224, dual growing rods) were identified. The meta-analysis found no significant differences in the preoperative and postoperative major Cobb angle, T1-S1 distance, thoracic kyphosis, and coronal balance between single and dual rods groups. The final follow-up major Cobb angle (P = 0.01; standardized mean difference, - 0.42 [95% confidence interval (CI), - 0.74 to - 0.10]; I² = 23%) was significantly smaller in dual rods group than single-rod group. However, no significant differences in the correction rate of angle (major Cobb angle and kyphosis angle) and changes in the T1-S1 distance between the two groups were observed. Moreover, there were no significant differences in the metalwork failure, infection, or proximal junctional kyphosis between single and dual rods groups. However, total complications (P = 0.03; risk ratio (RR), 0.79 [95% CI, 0.63-0.98]; I² = 29%) and distraction failure in MCGR (P = 0.04; RR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.14-0.98]; I² = 11%) were significantly lower in dual rods group than single-rod group.

CONCLUSION

This updated meta-analysis found that patients with dual growing rods had fewer complications, especially distraction failure in MCGR, than those with single growing rod. However, none of deformity correction, spinal growth, or other complications differed between single and dual growing rods. Therefore, we believe that dual growing rods do not provide strong advantages over single growing rod in the treatment of EOS.

Lengthening the Lower Extremities of Children with Ollier's and Maffucci's Enchondromatosis Using Implantable Lengthening Nails

There are multiple forms of enchondromatosis with Ollier's and Maffucci's being the most prevalent types. Limb length discrepancy is a common problem in patients with Ollier's and Maffucci's enchondromatosis. There are multiple reports about lengthening bones in patients with enchondromatosis using external fixators. However, there are no case series regarding the use of implantable lengthening technology. The purpose of this paper is to describe our experience with implantable nail lengthening in patients with enchondromatosis. A retrospective chart and radiographic review of patients with enchondromatosis who underwent implantable nail limb lengthening was performed. Seven patients with 14 bony segments were reviewed. A total of 11/14 lengthenings were completed without difficulty. There were no issues in terms of fixation location in patients with Ollier's disease. One patient with Maffucci's syndrome experienced migration of the nail during two lengthenings due to a combination of intralesional fixation and preconsolidation. One patient with Ollier's disease developed a knee extension contracture requiring manipulation under anesthesia. No other complications were recorded. The use of implantable nail lengthening to resolve limb length discrepancies in patients with Ollier's disease appears to be safe and effective.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Anterior Vertebral Body Tethering versus Spinal Fusion in Idiopathic Scoliosis from a US Integrated Healthcare Delivery System Perspective

Purpose

Anterior vertebral body tethering (VBT) is a non-fusion, minimally invasive, growth-modulating procedure with some early positive clinical outcomes reported in pediatric patients with idiopathic scoliosis (IS). VBT offers potential health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefits over spinal fusion in allowing patients to retain a greater range of motion after surgery. We conducted an early cost-utility analysis (CUA) to compare VBT with fusion as a first-choice surgical treatment for skeletally immature patients (age >10 years) with moderate to severe IS, who have failed nonoperative management, from a US integrated healthcare delivery system perspective.

Patients and Methods

The CUA uses a Markov state transition model, capturing a 15-year period following index surgery. Transition probabilities, including revision risk and subsequent fusion, were based on published surgical outcomes and an ongoing VBT observational study (NCT02897453). Patients were assigned utilities derived from published patient-reported outcomes (PROs; SRS-22r mapped to EQ-5D) following fusion and the above VBT study. Index and revision procedure costs were included. Probabilistic (PSA) and deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) were performed.

Results

VBT was associated with higher costs but also higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than fusion (incremental costs: $45,546; QALYs gained: 0.54). The subsequent incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for VBT vs fusion was $84,391/QALY gained. Mean PSA results were similar to the base case, indicating that results were generally robust to uncertainty. The DSA indicated that results were most sensitive to variations in utility values.

Conclusion

This is the first CUA comparing VBT with fusion in pediatric patients with IS and suggests that VBT may be a cost-effective alternative to fusion in the US, given recommended willingness-to-pay thresholds ($100,000–$150,000). The results rely on HRQoL benefits for VBT compared with fusion. For improved model accuracy, further analyses with longer-term PROs for VBT, and comparative effectiveness studies, would be needed.