ArticleGlobal spine journal2024
The Performance of MAGEC X Spine Rods: A Comparative Retrieval Study.
Article in Global spine journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measurement of the wear volumes generated within retrieved magnetically controlled growing rods.Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine · 2026Article
- An Analysis of the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database for MAGnetic Expansion Control Spinal Rods.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2025Article
- Growing rods in Early Onset Scoliosis: The current scenario.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designMulticentre comparative analysis of explanted Spine Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods (MCGRs).
objectivesMAGEC X, the latest commercially available generation, was recalled in 2020 due to the risk of post-implantation separation of an actuator end-cap component. Currently, the supply of all MAGEC rods was temporarily suspended in the UK and the EU. Objective of this study is to compare the performance of the MAGEC X MCGR to the earlier MAGEC 1.3 design iteration, by means of retrieval analysis.
methodsFifteen of both MAGEC X and MAGEC 1.3 rods were consecutively collected from five different hospitals following removal surgery and matched by time to removal. Clinical and implant data was collected for all MCGRs. Analysis comprised visual assessments of external damage, plain radiograph evaluations, force and elongation testing, MAGEC X end-cap torque testing and disassembly. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to statistically compare groups.
resultsRod distraction reached in vivo was significantly higher in the MAGEC 1.3 (
conclusionMAGEC X showed similar performance results than the previous design iteration MAGEC 1.3. End-cap component loosening was observed, with no major consequences on the internal mechanism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.