Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39313723›Full record

ArticleSpine deformity2025

Outcome of distraction-based growing rods at graduation: a comparison of traditional growing rods and magnetically controlled growing rods.

Jwalant Mehta, Suken Shah, Harry Hothi, Martina Tognini, Adrian Gardner, Charles E Johnston, Robert Murphy, George Thompson, Paul Sponseller, John Emans and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Spine deformity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

13 authors.

Jwalant MehtaRoyal Orthopaedic Hospital, Spinal Unit, Birmingham, England. Jsm@mehtaspine.co.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8389-063X
Suken ShahNemours Childrens' Hospital, Delaware, Wilmington, DE, 19803, USA.
Harry HothiMechanical Engineering Department, University College London, London, England.
Martina TogniniMechanical Engineering Department, University College London, London, England.
Adrian GardnerRoyal Orthopaedic Hospital, Spinal Unit, Birmingham, England.
Charles E JohnstonTexas Scottish Rite Hospital, Dallas, TX, USA.
Robert MurphyDepartment of Orthopaedics and Physical Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
George ThompsonRainbow Babies and Childrens' Hospital, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Paul SponsellerJohns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
John EmansBoston Childrens' Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Francisco Javier-GruesoPerdro Rico, Madrid, Spain.
Peter StrumCincinnati Childrens Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Pediatric Spine Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDistraction-based growing rods have been considered as an alternative surgical option for the operative treatment of EOS. TGR has been challenged by MCGR, which is reported to have the advantage of non-invasive lengthening with fewer planned returns to theatre. This study explores the radiographic outcomes, Unplanned Returns to the Operating Room (UPROR) and complication profile of both the procedures at the end of the planned growing rod treatment with either TGR or MCGR.

methodsWe included all the EOS cases from the PSSG database that underwent either TGR or MCGR with spine-based proximal anchors, followed up to the time of graduation. Any crossover or hybrid procedures were excluded. 549 patients (409 TGR and 140 MCGR) were eligible for review. We measured the coronal curve magnitude, Kyphosis, T1-T12, T1-S1 and L1-S1 lengths at 4 time points (before and after the index surgery and before and after the definitive surgery).

resultsThe TGR group were slightly younger at the time of the index procedure (7 years for TGR vs. 8.5 years for MCGR, p < 0.001). We noted an improvement in all radiological parameters after the growing rod implantation. The spinal lengths increased through the lengthening period, while the coronal curve magnitude and the kyphosis increased. The kyphosis normalized following the final fusion, the coronal curve magnitude reduced further with a further increase in spinal lengths. The final follow-up from the time of the index implantation to the definitive surgery was 5.1 years (IQR 3.8) in TGR and 3.5 years (IQR 1.65) in the MCGR groups. The total number of complications was fewer in the MCGR group. The overall risk of UPROR was lower in the MCGR group and implant breakage was less in the MCGR group by 4.7 times.

conclusionsThis study confirms the equivalence of both the distraction-based growing rods systems from the radiological stand-point, during the lengthening phase and at the time of the definitive surgery. The TGR was more kyphogenic during the lengthening period. The complications and UPROR were fewer in the MCGR groups.

Indexed as

Osteogenesis, DistractionScoliosisAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleRadiographyRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeDistraction-based growing rodsGraduates of growing rodsMagnetic rodsTraditional growing rodsUnplanned returnes to OR

Identifiers

PMID39313723

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.