Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38421434›Full record

ArticleInternational orthopaedics2024

Is posterior vertebral arthrodesis at the end of the electromagnetic rod lengthening program necessary for all patients? Comparative analysis of sixty six patients who underwent definitive spinal arthrodesis and twenty four patients with in situ lengthening rods.

Nicolas Mainard, Elie Saghbini, Sebastien Pesenti, Richard Gouron, Brice Ilharreborde, Yan Lefevre, Thierry Haumont, Jerome Sales de Gauzy, Federico Canavese

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Nicolas MainardDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Jeanne de Flandre Hospital, CHU Lille, Avenue Eugène Avinée, 59000, Lille, France. nicolas.mainard@orange.fr.ORCID 0000-0001-6403-2448
Elie SaghbiniOrthopaedic and Reconstructive Surgery in Children, Hôpital Armand-Trousseau - AP-HP Is, 26 Avenue du Docteur Arnold Netter, 75012, Paris, France.
Sebastien PesentiPediatric Orthopedic Surgery, Hôpital de La Timone Enfants, 264 Rue Saint-Pierre, 13005, Marseille, France.
Richard GouronChild Surgery, CHU Amiens-Picardie, 1 Rond-Point du Professeur Christian Cabrol, 80000, Amiens, France.
Brice IlharrebordeDepartment of Pediatric Orthopedic Surgery, Hôpital Robert-Debré, 48 Boulevard Sérurier, 75019, Paris, France.
Yan LefevreChildren's Surgery - Children's Hospital - Pellegrin Hospital Group, Place Amélie Raba-Léon, 33076, Bordeaux Cedex, France.
Thierry HaumontDepartment of Orthopedic, Trauma and Plastic Surgery, Hospital Mère Enfant, 59 Boulevard Pinel, 69500, Hospices Civils de LyonBron, France.
Jerome Sales de GauzyPaediatrics - Orthopaedic, Traumatological And Plastic Surgery, Children's Hospital, 330, Avenue de Grande Bretagne - TSA, 70034 - 31059, Toulouse, France.
Federico CanaveseDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Jeanne de Flandre Hospital, CHU Lille, Avenue Eugène Avinée, 59000, Lille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMagnetically controlled growing rods (MCGR) should be removed or changed at most two years after their implantation in the treatment of patients with early-onset scoliosis (EOS) (Safety notice July 2021). However, in the face of patients at high risk of intraoperative complications and relying on the principle of auto-fusion of the spine, some surgeons would prefer a more wait-and-see attitude. The aim of this study was to report on patients who did not undergo final fusion at the end of the lengthening program with MCGR and to compare them with those who did.

methodsThis was a multicenter study with ten centres. We collected all graduate patients with EOS who had received MCGR between 2011 and 2022.

resultsA total of 66 patients had final fusion at the end of the lengthening program and 24 patients kept MCGRs in situ. The mean total follow-up time was 66 months (range, 25.3-109), and the mean follow-up time after final lengthening was 24.9 months (range, 3-67.7). Regarding the main curve and thoracic height, there was no significant difference in the percentage of correction over the whole follow-up between the two groups (p = 0.099, p = 0.176) although there was a significant difference between the end of lengthening and the last follow-up (p < 0.001). After completion of the lengthening program, 18 patients who had final fusion developed 24 of the 26 recorded complications (92.3%).

conclusionContrary to the manufacturer's published safety notice, not all patients systematically benefited from the removal of the MCGRs. Although arthrodesis significantly improved the scoliotic deformity, no significant difference was found in terms of radiographic outcome between patients who underwent spinal fusion and those who kept the MCGRs in situ.

Indexed as

ScoliosisSpinal FusionAdolescentBone LengtheningChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesThoracic VertebraeTreatment OutcomeEarly Onset ScoliosisGraduateMagnetically controlled growing rodMetallosisPosterior spinal fusion

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.