ArticleSpine deformity2024
Increased lengthening frequency does not adversely affect the EOSQ scores in magnetically controlled growing rod surgeries in 133 subjects followed to final fusion.
Article in Spine deformity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMagnetically Controlled Growing Rod (MCGR) allows frequent outpatient rod lengthening when treating Early Onset Scoliosis (EOS) patients. But there is lack of expert consensus on the optimal MCGR lengthening interval. EOS 24-Item Questionnaire (EOSQ) is validated for assessing health-related quality of life (HrQOL), family burden, and satisfaction. This is the first study assessing how MCGR lengthening intervals affects patient-perceived outcomes.
methodsThis is a multicentred cohort study with subjects recruited from 2012 to 2018 and followed till fusion. EOS subjects who underwent MCGR surgeries were grouped into high, medium or low lengthening interval subgroups based on 16 and 20 week cut-offs. Repeated measure analysis was performed on EOSQ's specified 12 domains. EOSQ results were taken: before index surgery, after index surgery, and prior to definitive treatment. Demographic, clinical and radiographic data were included in model adjustment.
results133 subjects with mean follow-up of 3.5 (± 1.3) years were included, with 60 males and 73 females; 45 idiopathic, 23 congenital, 38 neuromuscular, and 27 syndromic patients. Mean Cobb angle at surgery was 67° (± 22°) with mean age of 8.3 (± 2.5) years. Between groups, clinical and radiographic parameters were comparable. Higher EOSQ scores in medium lengthening interval subgroup was present in fatigue (p = 0.019), emotion (p = 0.001), and parental impact (p = 0.049) domains, and overall score (p = 0.046). Trendline contrast between subgroups were present in general health (p = 0.006) and physical function (p = 0.025) domains.
conclusionPatient-perceived outcome improvements appear similar between lengthening interval subgroups. All MCGR lengthening intervals were tolerated by patients and family, with no negative impact observed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III.
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.