Correction of the spine with magnetically controlled growing rods in early onset scoliosis

Several studies have emphasized that the magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) technique decreases complications and costs and could be considered a safe procedure for treating patients with early onset scoliosis (EOS). To the best of our knowledge, the sagittal profile of patients with an implanted MCGR has not been sufficiently studied before.

The objectives of this study were twofold: firstly, to evaluate the influence of MCGR on the coronal, sagittal and axial planes. Secondly, to analyze changes of cervical alignment post-MCGR implantation.

This was a retrospective study of patients with EOS who underwent MCGR from 2012 to 2018. Patients were included if they presented with a thoracic or lumbar curvature greater than 40° (Cobb angle) and Risser’s sign 0. Global analysis of all patients was reported. Patients were stratified preoperatively by thoracic alignment into a hypokyphotic or kyphotic group. Furthermore, the study population was divided into an anteriorly aligned group and a posteriorly aligned group. Sagittal alignment parameters and parameters of coronal and axial plane were measured and the preoperative to postoperative change was compared then analyzed 1 year after surgery. No external funding was procured for this research and the authors’ conflicts of interest are not pertinent to the present work.

A total of 21 patients were included in the study. There was a significant coronal correction of the structural and compensatory curves (p < 0.01). Before and after surgery, the coronal C7 plumbline was unchanged and remained within the normal range. Postoperatively, a significant derotation of the apical vertebra in thoracic and lumbar curves was observed (p < 0.05). Global analysis of the sagittal profile revealed a significant decrease of TK (p < 0.001) and T9SPi (p = 0.002) with a simultaneous significant increase of T1T3 angle (p = 0.015) and T1T4 angle (p = 0.015). No significant changes of the sagittal parameters of cervical, lumbar and spinopelvic parameters were noted. Among all groups, cervical parameters did not reveal any statistically significant changes. At 1‑year follow up the T1T3 angle (p = 0.01) and T1T4 angle (p = 0.03) were significantly increased. All other measured parameters of sagittal, coronal and axial profile were unchanged.

The implantation of MCGR had a significant impact on the sagittal profile. Notwithstanding, no further compensatory mechanisms of the cervical spine and pelvis had to be recruited to safeguard sagittal alignment.