ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025
Is MAGEC X better than earlier designs of magnetically controlled growing rod: an explant study.
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDetermine the performance of MAGEC X rods through retrieval analysis and comparison with clinical data.
methodsA multicentre explant database was searched to identify cases using MAGEC X device. Clinical and surgical data was gathered prospectively. Prior to rod disassembly, rods underwent testing with an external remote controller to measure the force output.
resultsEleven cases from 6 centres were identified. Implantation occurred at mean age 6.9 years with mean duration of implantation 42 months. Dual rod constructs were used in all but one case, providing 21 MAGEC X rods for explant analysis. Tissue metallosis was identified at revision surgery in 8/11 cases (73%). Of the 21 rods, 13/21 (62%) produced no force while 8/21 (38%) produced the force stated by the manufacturer. Endcap separation was seen in 5/21 (24%) rods. Where full disassembly was possible, 13/14 (93%) rods had an intact locking pin. Average rod growth was 18 mm (range 2-45 mm), equivalent to 5.1 mm per year. Wear debris was found within 20/21 (95%) MAGEC X rods.
conclusionDespite the substantial design changes with MAGEC X tissue metallosis was seen in most cases; most explanted MAGEC X rods had lengthened only partially and produced no force output. While the previous issue of locking pin fracture appears to have been mitigated with MAGEC X, there are multiple other and new failure modes, such as endcap separation. Overall MAGEC X appears to give little improvement over earlier iterations of the rod.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39499295What 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.