MAGEC X 是否比早期设计的磁控生长棒更好:一项外植体研究。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Thomas J Joyce, Goksu Kandemir, David Fender, Andrew J Bowey, Paul R P Rushton
{"title":"MAGEC X 是否比早期设计的磁控生长棒更好:一项外植体研究。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

目的:通过检索分析以及与临床数据的比较,确定 MAGEC X 棒的性能:搜索多中心外科医生数据库,确定使用 MAGEC X 装置的病例。前瞻性地收集了临床和手术数据。在拆卸手术棒之前,使用外部遥控器对手术棒进行测试,以测量输出力:结果:确定了来自 6 个中心的 11 个病例。平均植入年龄为 6.9 岁,平均植入时间为 42 个月。除一例外,所有病例均使用了双杆结构,共提供了 21 根 MAGEC X 杆件用于外植体分析。在 8/11 例(73%)翻修手术中发现了组织金属化。在这 21 根杆中,13/21(62%)没有产生作用力,8/21(38%)产生了制造商规定的作用力。5/21(24%)根棒出现了端盖分离。在可以完全拆卸的情况下,13/14(93%)根棒的锁定销完好无损。棒材平均增长 18 毫米(范围为 2-45 毫米),相当于每年增长 5.1 毫米。在 20/21 根(95%)MAGEC X 棒内发现了磨损碎屑:结论:尽管 MAGEC X 在设计上有了很大的改变,但在大多数病例中仍能看到组织金属化现象;大多数被取出的 MAGEC X 杆仅延长了一部分,而且没有产生任何力输出。虽然以前的锁定销断裂问题似乎在 MAGEC X 中得到了缓解,但仍存在多种其他新的失效模式,例如端盖分离。总体而言,MAGEC X 与之前的迭代杆相比似乎没有什么改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is MAGEC X better than earlier designs of magnetically controlled growing rod: an explant study.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Spine Journal
European Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.70%
发文量
373
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
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
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信