ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025
An Analysis of the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database for MAGnetic Expansion Control Spinal Rods.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. 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.
- Safety and Efficacy of Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods for Early Onset Scoliosis in the Era of Disease-Modifying Therapies: Mid-term Results in a Homogeneous Cohort of Spinal Muscular Atrophy Type 1 Patients.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026Article
- 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
- Final Fusion Strategies in Early-Onset Scoliosis: Does Implant Density Make a Difference After Magnetically Controlled Growing Rod Treatment?Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMAGnetic Expansion Control (MAGEC) rods can prevent repeated lengthening operations for scoliosis patients. However, there have been several Field Safety Notices issued, including a worldwide product recall due to actuator endcap separation. We aimed to review adverse events reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding MAGEC rods, focusing on MAGEC X.
methodsReports submitted to the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database in relation to MAGEC devices were accessed and analysed using R Statistical Software. Exclusion criteria included duplicate and literature review reports (n = 54). Free-text data were analysed using inductive content analysis.
results1016 adverse events were reported to 11/30/2023. 99.0% (1006) were submitted by the manufacturer. Reports primarily arose from the UK (465, 45.8%) or US (421, 41.4%). From free-text data the most frequent adverse events were distraction mechanism failure (573), device wear (272), and actuator seal damage (180). Rod fracture (n = 48) was not significantly associated with rod diameter (≤ 5.0 mm or > 5.0 mm), p = 0.736. 234 reports referenced MAGEC X devices; actuator endcap separation was identified in 41.9% (99). Other events include failure of distraction (63), surface damage (31), and rod fracture (15). On 06/30/2020 MAGEC X2 received FDA approval. Twenty reports reference devices manufactured after this date, seven describe distraction mechanism failure; notably there are no reports of endcap separation.
conclusionThese data represent the largest series of adverse events reported for MAGEC rods, including significant new data regarding MAGEC X. As well as endcap separation, failure of distraction, surface damage, and rod fracture were reported.
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.