Thomas J Joyce, Goksu Kandemir, David Fender, Andrew J Bowey, Paul R P Rushton
{"title":"Is MAGEC X better than earlier designs of magnetically controlled growing rod: an explant study.","authors":"Thomas J Joyce, Goksu Kandemir, David Fender, Andrew J Bowey, Paul R P Rushton","doi":"10.1007/s00586-024-08546-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Determine the performance of MAGEC X rods through retrieval analysis and comparison with clinical data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12323,"journal":{"name":"European Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08546-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Determine the performance of MAGEC X rods through retrieval analysis and comparison with clinical data.
Methods: A 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.
Results: Eleven 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.
Conclusion: Despite 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.
期刊介绍:
"European Spine Journal" is a publication founded in response to the increasing trend toward specialization in spinal surgery and spinal pathology in general. The Journal is devoted to all spine related disciplines, including functional and surgical anatomy of the spine, biomechanics and pathophysiology, diagnostic procedures, and neurology, surgery and outcomes. The aim of "European Spine Journal" is to support the further development of highly innovative spine treatments including but not restricted to surgery and to provide an integrated and balanced view of diagnostic, research and treatment procedures as well as outcomes that will enhance effective collaboration among specialists worldwide. The “European Spine Journal” also participates in education by means of videos, interactive meetings and the endorsement of educative efforts.
Official publication of EUROSPINE, The Spine Society of Europe