Traditional versus magnetic-controlled growth rods for early onset scoliosis treatment: radiographic, pulmonary, and quality-of-life outcomes at graduation.

Charles E Johnston, Tiffany Thompson, Amareesa Robinson, Rikki Koehler

Abstract readComparative Study

In one paragraph

Article in Spine deformity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Current Knowledge of Respiratory Function in Early Onset Scoliosis and the Effect of Its Contemporary Surgical Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026
Review

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

4 authors.

Charles E JohnstonDepartment of Orthopedics, Scottish Rite for Children, 2222 Welborn St, Dallas, TX, 75219, USA. charles.johnston@tsrh.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7178-1981

Tiffany ThompsonDepartment of Orthopedics, Scottish Rite for Children, 2222 Welborn St, Dallas, TX, 75219, USA.

Amareesa RobinsonDepartment of Orthopedics, Scottish Rite for Children, 2222 Welborn St, Dallas, TX, 75219, USA.

Rikki KoehlerDepartment of Orthopedics, Scottish Rite for Children, 2222 Welborn St, Dallas, TX, 75219, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFew studies directly compare the efficacy of magnetic-controlled and traditional growing rods for early onset scoliosis (EOS) treatment from pre-implantation to definitive fusion or final lengthening. We hypothesize that TGR is more efficient than MCGR in achieving more spine length and curve correction but at the cost of more complications. We also hypothesize that patient-reported outcomes and pulmonary function are minimally changed after completion of treatment.

methodsAll patients treated at one institution between 2010 and 2022 who graduated from growth-sparing treatment and had undergone definitive fusion or were being observed with retained implants were evaluated. T1-T12 and T1-S1 lengths and curve magnitude were recorded at 3 time points on coronal films: pre-op, prior to definitive fusion or after final lengthening, and post-definitive fusion or last observation. EOSQ-24 scores, PFTs, and complications were collected.

resultsFifty-one patients (27 MCGR, 24 TGR) had complete graduation radiographs. Age of insertion was no different (MCGR- age 7 vs. TGR-6.5, p = 0.14) or at removal (MCGR-11.7 vs TGR-11.3, p = 0.48). MCGR patients had smaller initial curves (81 vs 89° p = .02), which remained smaller (32° vs TGR 50°, p < .001) after definitive fusion. T1-12 length was initially shorter for TGR (14.8 vs 16.3 cm, p = .05) but no different at pre-definitive due to more effective TGR length gain (TGR > MCGR 5.8 vs 3.6 cm p = .006). Similarly, TGR gained more T1-S1 length than MCGR (8.9 vs 6.1 cm, p = .01). Overall TGR patients gained greater length but at the cost of more complications per patient than MCGR (2.4 vs 1.5 p = 0.0035) and more UPRORs (p = .04). TGR patients gained greater absolute and % predicted PFT volumes compared to preoperative values which did not occur in the MCGR cohort. EOSQ-24 scores for MCGR improved in several domains.

conclusionDeformity correction was primarily achieved at initial implantation surgery for both techniques, though MCGR patients achieved even smaller curves after definitive fusion compared to TGR. TGR lengthened more effectively than MCGR but with more complications and UPRORs. PFTs were improved for TGR patients but not for MCGR, while EOSQ scores in the MCGR cohort were modestly improved.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeScoliosisSpinal FusionChildFemaleHumansMagnetsMalePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresRadiographyRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeEOS graduatesGrowth-sparing instrumentationMagnetic-controlled growing rodsPulmonary functionTraditional growing rods

Identifiers

PMID41136804

DOI10.1007/s43390-024-00910-2

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.