Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Early-onset scoliosis (EOS) has always been a challenging situation for spine surgeons. The aim of treatment is to control the direction of curve progression to allow for the complete development of lungs. Among all the growth constructs available, traditional growth rods (TGR) and magnetically controlled growth rods (MCGR) are most widely used. The MCGR has been introduced a few years back and there is a dearth of long-term follow-up studies. The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of TGR and MCGR for the treatment of EOS.
METHODS: All patients of EOS managed with either TGR or MCGR were included in the study. The patients managed with other methods or having follow-up < 2-years were excluded from the study. A total of 20 patients were recruited in the MCGR group and 28 patients were recruited in the TGR group. Both groups were matched by etiology, gender, pre-operative radiological parameters, and complications including unplanned surgeries.
RESULTS: The mean age in our study was 7.90 years in the MCGR group and 7.46 years in the TGR group. The mean duration of follow-up in the MCGR group was 50.89 months and in the TGR group 94.2 months. Pre-operative cobb\'s angle in the coronal plane and T1-S1 were comparable in both groups with a mean cobb\'s angle of 65.4 in MCGR and 70.5 in TGR. The mean T1-S1 length in the MCGR group was 36.1cms and in the TGR group was 35.2 cms (p = 0.18). The average increase in T1-S1 length was 1.3 cm/year in the TGR group and 1.1 cm/year in the MCGR group (p > 0.05). The TGR patients underwent 186 open lengthening surgeries and 11 unplanned surgeries for various complications. The MCGR group has 180 non-invasive lengthening with only 4 unplanned returns to OT for various causes.
CONCLUSIONS: The curve correction was similar in both TGR and MCGR groups. The average T1-S1 length achieved on final follow-up was similar in both groups. The MCGR patients have attained similar correction with fewer invasive procedures and lesser complications compared to the TGR group.
METHODS: All patients of EOS managed with either TGR or MCGR were included in the study. The patients managed with other methods or having follow-up < 2-years were excluded from the study. A total of 20 patients were recruited in the MCGR group and 28 patients were recruited in the TGR group. Both groups were matched by etiology, gender, pre-operative radiological parameters, and complications including unplanned surgeries.
RESULTS: The mean age in our study was 7.90 years in the MCGR group and 7.46 years in the TGR group. The mean duration of follow-up in the MCGR group was 50.89 months and in the TGR group 94.2 months. Pre-operative cobb\'s angle in the coronal plane and T1-S1 were comparable in both groups with a mean cobb\'s angle of 65.4 in MCGR and 70.5 in TGR. The mean T1-S1 length in the MCGR group was 36.1cms and in the TGR group was 35.2 cms (p = 0.18). The average increase in T1-S1 length was 1.3 cm/year in the TGR group and 1.1 cm/year in the MCGR group (p > 0.05). The TGR patients underwent 186 open lengthening surgeries and 11 unplanned surgeries for various complications. The MCGR group has 180 non-invasive lengthening with only 4 unplanned returns to OT for various causes.
CONCLUSIONS: The curve correction was similar in both TGR and MCGR groups. The average T1-S1 length achieved on final follow-up was similar in both groups. The MCGR patients have attained similar correction with fewer invasive procedures and lesser complications compared to the TGR group.
摘要：
目的：早发性脊柱侧凸（EOS）一直是脊柱外科医师面临的挑战。治疗的目的是控制曲线进展的方向以允许肺的完全发育。在所有可用的增长结构中，传统生长棒(TGR)和磁控生长棒(MCGR)应用最广泛。MCGR是几年前推出的，缺乏长期的后续研究。本研究的目的是比较TGR和MCGR治疗EOS的有效性。
方法：所有接受TGR或MCGR治疗的EOS患者均纳入研究。采用其他方法治疗或随访<2年的患者被排除在研究之外。MCGR组招募了20例患者，TGR组招募了28例患者。两组均符合病因，性别,术前放射参数,以及包括计划外手术在内的并发症.
结果：我们研究的平均年龄在MCGR组为7.90岁，在TGR组为7.46岁。MCGR组的平均随访时间为50.89个月，TGR组为94.2个月。两组术前冠状面中的cobb角和T1-S1具有可比性，MCGR的平均cobb角为65.4，TGR的平均cobb角为70.5。MCGR组的平均T1-S1长度为36.1cms，TGR组为35.2cms（p=0.18）。TGR组T1-S1长度平均增加1.3cm/年,MCGR组平均增加1.1cm/年(p>0.05)。TGR患者接受了186例开放式延长手术和11例非计划手术治疗各种并发症。MCGR组有180个非侵入性的延长，只有4个计划外的返回OT的各种原因。
结论：TGR组和MCGR组的曲线校正相似。两组最终随访时获得的平均T1-S1长度相似。与TGR组相比，MCGR患者获得了类似的矫正，侵入性手术较少，并发症较少。
方法：所有接受TGR或MCGR治疗的EOS患者均纳入研究。采用其他方法治疗或随访<2年的患者被排除在研究之外。MCGR组招募了20例患者，TGR组招募了28例患者。两组均符合病因，性别,术前放射参数,以及包括计划外手术在内的并发症.
结果：我们研究的平均年龄在MCGR组为7.90岁，在TGR组为7.46岁。MCGR组的平均随访时间为50.89个月，TGR组为94.2个月。两组术前冠状面中的cobb角和T1-S1具有可比性，MCGR的平均cobb角为65.4，TGR的平均cobb角为70.5。MCGR组的平均T1-S1长度为36.1cms，TGR组为35.2cms（p=0.18）。TGR组T1-S1长度平均增加1.3cm/年,MCGR组平均增加1.1cm/年(p>0.05)。TGR患者接受了186例开放式延长手术和11例非计划手术治疗各种并发症。MCGR组有180个非侵入性的延长，只有4个计划外的返回OT的各种原因。
结论：TGR组和MCGR组的曲线校正相似。两组最终随访时获得的平均T1-S1长度相似。与TGR组相比，MCGR患者获得了类似的矫正，侵入性手术较少，并发症较少。
