Premature spinal fusion after insertion of magnetically controlled growing rods for treatment of early-onset scoliosis: illustrative case

BACKGROUND Magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) systems have gained attention for their use in the treatment of early-onset scoliosis. Although traditional growing rods require frequent operations to lengthen the construct, MCGR allows for fewer open procedures and more frequent distractions by externally controlling rod elongation. Despite its appealing advantages, MCGR is not without limitations. OBSERVATIONS The authors describe a case of premature spinal autofusion before growing rod removal and termination of rod distraction. LESSONS This case highlights the limitations of MCGR systems, including length of use, body habitus restrictions, and risk of autofusion.

A biomechanical study on the effect of lengthening magnitude on spine off-loading in magnetically controlled growing rod surgery: Implications on lengthening frequency

Purpose: To assess whether the magnitude of lengthening in magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) surgeries has an immediate or delayed effect on spinal off-loading. Methods: 9 whole porcine spines were instrumented using two standard MCGRs from T9 to L5. Static compression testing using a mechanical testing system (MTS) was performed at three MCGR lengthening stages (0 mm, 2 mm, and 6 mm) in each spine. At each stage, five cycles of compression at 175N with 25 min of relaxation was carried out. Off-loading was derived by comparing the load sustained by the spine with force applied by the MTS to the spine. Micro-CT imaging was subsequently performed. Results: The mean load sustained by the vertebral body before lengthening was 39.69N, and immediately after lengthening was 25.12N and 19.91N at 2 mm and 6 mm lengthening, respectively; decreasing to 10.07N, 8.31N, and 8.17N after 25 minutes of relaxation, at 0 mm, 2 mm, and 6 mm lengthening stages, respectively. There was no significant difference in off-loading between 2 mm and 6 mm lengthening stages, either instantaneously ( p = 0.395) or after viscoelastic relaxation ( p = 0.958). CT images showed fractures/separations at the level of pedicle screws in six spines and in the vertebral body’s growth zone in five spines after 6 mm MCGR lengthening. Conclusion: This study demonstrated MCGRs cause significant off-loading of the spine leading to stress shielding. 6 mm of lengthening caused tissue damage and microfractures in some spines. There was no significant difference in spine off-loading between 2 mm and 6 mm MCGR lengthening, either immediately after lengthening or after viscoelastic relaxation.

Magnet Fracture within a Magnetically Controlled Growing Rod: A Case Report of a New Mechanism of Failure

Introduction: Magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGRs) have been widely adopted in the management of early-onset scoliosis since they were first described in 2012. Recent reports have highlighted concerns around their safety. To date, little is understood about the risk factors and modes of failure in these devices. Case Report: We report a novel mechanism of device failure in a 14-year-old patient following multiple revisions of MCGRs. Clinically, there was no evidence of device failure and the MCGRs appeared radiologically intact. Explantation analysis revealed multiple compromised/non-functional components. A previously undocumented phenomenon of complete magnet fracture was also seen. Conclusion: The absence of clinical or radiological features of device failure in this case makes the findings of great concern. Given the relative paucity of high-quality evidence surrounding the use of MCGRs, we support calls for urgent comparative studies and further investigation of risk factors for device failure. Keywords: Spinal surgery, Scoliosis, Magnetically controlled growing rods, Implant.

The first magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) in the world – lessons learned and how the identified complications helped to develop the implant in the past decade: case report

Background The first magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) was implanted in 2009. Since then multiple complications have been identified that have helped drive the development of the MCGR and its surgery. The aim of this report is to illustrate how identified complications in the first MCGR helped with developments in the past decade and to report a unique failure mechanism with stud fracture close to the barrel opening. Case presentation A 5-year old girl with a scoliosis of 58.5 degrees at T1–9 and 72.8 degrees at T9-L4 had a single MCGR inserted and anchored at T3–4 and L3–4. At postoperative 13 months the MCGR was noted to have lost of distraction between lengthening episodes due to unrestricted turning of the internal magnet. To prevent further loss of distraction, an external magnet was placed outside the skin to prevent the magnet from turning back. The overall balance was suboptimal and after the rod was fully distracted, proximal junctional kyphosis occurred. Subsequently, the MCGR was modified with an internal keeper plate to prevent loss of distraction and a dual set of these rods were implanted when the patient was 9 years old. Extension proximally to C7-T1 was done to manage the proximal junctional kyphosis. Her spinal balance improved and distractions continued. She subsequently developed add-on below and the piston rod was not aligned with the actuator. The lumbar spine was also observed to have autofusion. She subsequently had final fusion surgery performed at the age of 15 from C7-L4 leaving a residual tilt below to avoid fusion to the pelvis. The final extracted rod on the left side indicated the “crooked rod sign” on X-ray and rod dissections revealed a new failure mechanism of stud fracture close to the barrel opening. Body fluids and tissue may infiltrate the rod despite no obvious deformation or fractures resulting in hastened wearing of the threads. Conclusions There are various complications associated with MCGRs that are related to rod design and surgical inexperience. Repeated rod stalling is not recommended with potential stud fracture and “crooked rod sign”. Rotor stalling and thread wearing which indicates rod failure still require solutions.