Next Article in Journal
Carotid Interventions in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Narrative Review
Previous Article in Journal
The Surgical Stress Response and Anesthesia: A Narrative Review
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Reply

Reply to Tabeling et al. Comment on “Grabala et al. Radiological Outcomes of Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods for the Treatment of Children with Various Etiologies of Early-Onset Scoliosis—A Multicenter Study. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 1529”

1
Department of Pediatric Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, University Children’s Hospital, Medical University of Bialystok, Waszyngtona 17, 15-274 Bialystok, Poland
2
Paley European Institute, Al. Rzeczypospolitej 1, 02-972 Warsaw, Poland
3
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, 660 S. Euclid Ave., St. Louis, MO 63110, USA
4
Paediatric Orthopaedic Department, Medical University of Lublin, Gebali 6, 20-093 Lublin, Poland
5
Department of Spine Disorders and Pediatric Orthopaedics, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, 28 Czerwca 1956 r. Street, No. 135/147, 61-545 Poznań, Poland
6
2nd Clinical Department of General and Gastroenterogical Surgery, The Medical University of Bialystok Clinical Hospital, Medical University of Bialystok, M. Skłodowskiej-Curie 24a, 15-276 Bialystok, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(11), 3018; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13113018
Submission received: 10 May 2024 / Accepted: 17 May 2024 / Published: 21 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Orthopedics)
We are immensely gratified by the considerable interest our study has garnered [1], leading to a multitude of correspondences and official remarks [2]. The scrutiny of our work and the comprehensive analysis of the research findings will result in a juxtaposition with other studies [3,4,5,6,7,8,9], thereby enriching the advancement of spinal surgery and enhancing the surgical methodologies employed in treating pediatric patients afflicted with early-onset spinal deformities. Our study’s objective was to examine the surgical interventions for early-onset scoliosis stemming from diverse causes, utilizing a methodology akin to previous investigations of magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGRs). Our focus was on meticulously evaluating the outcomes of patients subjected to the MCGR growing system. The surplus data may have caused variations in the analysis of parameters across different groups, potentially influencing the ultimate outcome [3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. We acknowledge the curiosity of researchers engrossed in diverse growing systems, as depicted by prior works, regarding the intricacies of our study. We express gratitude for the attention paid to segregating patients treated with MCGR from those who have completed the treatment and proceeded to final correction with spondylodesis. It is worth noting that our research was carefully conducted, and the amassed research findings were intended for publication across a series of publications rather than a singular one; however, due to numerous inquiries such as this letter to the editor, the remaining data will be incorporated into the subsequent response [1,2].
As elucidated by the authors [2] of the aforementioned study, the calculation for growth in the T1–T12 and T1–S1 segments entailed subtracting the initial postoperative value from the latest postoperative value [1]. This methodology was consistently applied to ascertain the maintenance of curve correction. Consequently, the amalgamation of curve values throughout the observation period of MCGR treatment and postdefinitive surgery with posterior spinal fusion (PSF) into a single group and averaging them led to a reduction in the principal curve during growth-friendly treatment. Indeed, with respect to the actual efficacy of distraction-based implants, a diminishment in correction is frequently observed, as aptly observed by the authors. They also posited that incorporating radiographs’ postfinal fusion was crucial in evaluating the performance of MCGR, potentially inflating the corrective impact of this approach, both in curve correction and growth. We respectfully disagree with this viewpoint, as the X-ray imagery is intended to reflect the authentic outcome of the treatment, exemplifying an efficacious surgical approach. It is widely acknowledged that the efficacy of a surgical technique is contingent upon its adherence to medical indications and execution by a proficient surgeon specialized in the method.
At the recommendation of the authors of the commentary [2], we have opted to disclose the actual radiological findings of patients undergoing treatment with the MCGR system, commencing from the initiation of treatment to the elongation of the MCGR rods until the conclusion of this process, prior to the ultimate surgical procedure. Table 1 comprises the radiological statistics of patients managed with MCGR, encompassing the final assessments before the conversion of MCGR to PSF, with the exception of the outcomes after the final surgery and PSF. These findings mirror the comparable accomplishments of other investigators [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. Examination of the growth from T1–T12 and T1–S1 delineated the average growth rates for T1–T12 and T1–S1 during the treatment regimen as 5.95 mm and 10.1 mm per annum, respectively, in accordance with existing studies within the medical literature [15,16,17,18,19].
Moreover, it has been observed that with each successive year of MCGR therapy beyond 2 years, the potential for elongating T1–T12 and T1–S1 diminishes, with these values possibly decreasing by an average of up to 20% each subsequent year [19]. Furthermore, congruent T1–T12 and T1–S1 extension values were noted during MCGR insertion surgery, with T1–T12 and T1–S1 parameters escalating by 52% and 51% of the total length achieved since MCGR implantation through the elongation process, resulting in an increase in T1–T12 and T1–S1 by 48% and 49%, respectively [15]. In reference to the analysis by the authors of the commentary concerning the T1–T12 and T1–S1 values [2], and the Cobb angle of the primary curvature, it can be deduced from our findings that despite the adverse parameters and potential complications arising from MCGR treatment, the application of magnetic rods allows for the attainment of satisfactory radiological and clinical outcomes.
It is essential to acknowledge that the methodology of MCGR placement that we employ [20,21,22] incorporates minimally invasive entry (restricts spontaneous spondylodesis), along with the utilization of larger transpedicular screw dimensions (to mitigate the risk of pull-out and enhance biomechanical characteristics) [21], which may exert a notable influence on clinical and radiological outcomes and the potential for complications and subsequent interventions [13,14], thereby potentially diminishing the ultimate results for T1–T12, T1–S1, and the definitive rectification of spinal deformity. Imperfections exist in all implants; yet we anticipate that our investigations and findings, as well as those of the authors of the commentary [1,23,24,25], will contribute to substantial advancements and enhancements in the surgical management of early-onset scoliosis.

Conflicts of Interest

Pawel Grabala received a salary from Nuvasive (consultant). Gupta reports consulting with Depuy Synthes, Medtronic, and Globus Medical, royalties with Depuy Synthes, Globus Medical, and Innomed, travel support from Depuy Synthes, Globus, Medtronic, and Zimmer Biomet, stock/equity in Johnson and Johnson, and advisory fees from Depuy Synthes; he is on the Board of Directors of the Scoliosis Research Society with travel support for faculty, has a nonfinancial voluntary relationship with National Spine Health Foundation, and has received travel honoraria for faculty from AO Spine; and he was a consultant for Alphatec (ended 2019), and received travel support from Medicrea and Misuho (ended 2019). All other authors report that they have nothing to disclose. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Grabala, P.; Gupta, M.C.; Pereira, D.E.; Latalski, M.; Danielewicz, A.; Glowka, P.; Grabala, M. Radiological Outcomes of Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods for the Treatment of Children with Various Etiologies of Early-Onset Scoliosis—A Multicenter Study. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  2. Tabeling, C.S.; Lemans, J.V.C.; Kruyt, M.C. Comment on Grabala et al. Radiological Outcomes of Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods for the Treatment of Children with Various Etiologies of Early-Onset Scoliosis—A Multicenter Study. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 1529. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 2434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lebel, D.E.; Rocos, B.; Helenius, I.; Sigal, A.; Struder, D.; Yazici, M.; Bekmez, S.; Hasler, C.C.; Pesenti, S.; Jouve, J.L.; et al. Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods Graduation: Deformity Control with High Complication Rate. Spine 2021, 46, E1105–E1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Hosseini, P.; Pawelek, J.; Mundis, G.M.; Yaszay, B.; Ferguson, J.; Helenius, I.; Cheung, K.M.; Demirkiran, G.; Alanay, A.; Senkoylu, A.; et al. Magnetically controlled Growing Rods for Early-onset Scoliosis: A Multicenter Study of 23 Cases with Minimum 2 years Follow-up. Spine 2016, 41, 1456–1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Gurel, R.; Elbaz, E.; Sigal, A.; Gigi, R.; Otremski, H.; Lebel, D.E.; Ovadia, D. Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods Graduation: Lessons from a Single-center Series of 48 Patients. J. Pediatr. Orthop. 2024, 44, e157–e162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Heyer, J.H.; Anari, J.B.; Baldwin, K.D.; Mitchell, S.L.; Luhmann, S.J.; Sturm, P.F.; Flynn, J.M.; Cahill, P.J.; Pediatric Spine Study Group. Lengthening Behavior of Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods in Early-Onset Scoliosis: A Multicenter Study. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2022, 104, 2186–2194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Welborn, M.C.; Bouton, D. Outcomes of MCGR at >3 year average follow-up in severe scoliosis: Who undergoes elective revision vs. UPROR? Spine Deform. 2022, 10, 457–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Matsumoto, H.; Sinha, R.; Roye, B.D.; Ball, J.R.; Skaggs, K.F.; Brooks, J.T.; Welborn, M.C.; Emans, J.B.; Anari, J.B.; Johnston, C.E.; et al. Contraindications to magnetically controlled growing rods: Consensus among experts in treating early onset scoliosis. Spine Deform. 2022, 10, 1289–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Welborn, M.C.; Krajbich, J.I.; D’Amato, C. Use of Magnetic Spinal Growth Rods (MCGR) With and Without Preoperative Halo-gravity Traction (HGT) for the Treatment of Severe Early-onset Scoliosis (EOS). J. Pediatr. Orthop. 2019, 39, e293–e297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Tabeling, C.S.; Lemans, J.V.C.; Castelein, R.M.; Kruyt, M.C. Letter to the editor regarding “Is rod diameter associated with the rate of rod fracture in patients treated with magnetically controlled growing rods”? Spine Deform. 2021, 9, 1207–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Roye, B.; Marciano, G.; Matsumoto, H.; Fields, M.W.; Campbell, M.; White, K.K.; Sawyer, J.; Smith, J.T.; Luhmann, S.; Sturm, P.; et al. Author’s response to letter to the editor regarding “Is rod diameter associated with the rate of rod fracture in patients treated with magnetically controlled growing rods”? Spine Deform. 2021, 9, 1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. O’Neill, N.; Cook, D.; Verhofste, B.; Smith, J.; Pediatric Spine Study Group; Emans, J.B. Early outcomes of growth friendly instrumentation in children with Williams syndrome. Spine Deform. 2022, 10, 717–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Wacker, E.M.; Schultz, L.; Leitsinger, N.; Jain, V.V.; Sturm, P.F. Growing Rod versus Posterior Spinal Fusion Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Scoliosis: Unique Characteristics and Surgical Outcomes. Healthcare 2024, 12, 489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  14. Pasha, S.; Sturm, P.F. Contouring the magnetically controlled growing rods: Impact on expansion capacity and proximal junctional kyphosis. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2021, 31, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Asma, A.; Fralinger, D.; da Silva, L.C.A.; Mackenzie, W.G.S.; Gabos, P.G.; Mackenzie, W.G.; Shah, S.A. Predictors of Rod Length Gain and Sagittal Alignment Change After Magnetically Controlled Growing Rod Lengthening. Spine 2024, 49, 349–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Dimeglio, A.; Canavese, F. The growing spine: How spinal deformities influence normal spine and thoracic cage growth. Eur. Spine J. 2012, 21, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Abdelaal, A.; Munigangaiah, S.; Trivedi, J.; Davidson, N. Magnetically controlled growing rods in the treatment of early onset scoliosis: A single centre experience of 44 patients with mean follow-up of 4.1 years. Bone Jt. Open 2020, 1, 405–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Haapala, H.; Saarinen, A.J.; Salonen, A.; Helenius, I. Shilla Growth Guidance Compared With Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods in the Treatment of Neuromuscular and Syndromic Early-onset Scoliosis. Spine 2020, 45, E1604–E1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Ellinger, F.; Tropp, H.; Gerdhem, P.; Hallgren, H.B.; Ivars, K. Magnetically controlled growing rod treatment for early-onset scoliosis: Analysis of 52 consecutive cases demonstrates improvement of coronal deformity. J. Spine Surg. 2023, 9, 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  20. Chamberlin, K.; Galgano, M.; Grabala, P. Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods for Early-Onset Scoliosis: 2-Dimensional Operative Video. Oper. Neurosurg. 2023, 25, e279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Grabala, P.; Kowalski, P.; Grabala, M. The Influence of Increased Pedicle Screw Diameter and Thicker Rods on Surgical Results in Adolescents Undergoing Posterior Spinal Fusion for Idiopathic Scoliosis. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  22. Grabala, P.; Helenius, I.J.; Chamberlin, K.; Galgano, M. Less-Invasive Approach to Early-Onset Scoliosis-Surgical Technique for Magnetically Controlled Growing Rod (MCGR) Based on Treatment of 2-Year-Old Child with Severe Scoliosis. Children 2023, 10, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  23. Lemans, J.V.C.; Top, A.; Tabeling, C.S.; Scholten, E.P.; Stempels, H.W.; Schlösser, T.P.C.; Castelein, R.M.; Kruyt, M.C. Health-related quality of life in early onset scoliosis patients treated with the spring distraction system: What to expect in the first 2 years after surgery. Spine Deform. 2024, 12, 489–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  24. Lemans, J.V.C.; Tabeling, C.S.; Scholten, E.P.; Stempels, H.W.; Miladi, L.; Castelein, R.M.; Kruyt, M.C. Surgical treatment of neuromuscular Early Onset Scoliosis with a bilateral posterior one-way rod compared to the Spring Distraction System: Study protocol for a limited-efficacy Randomized Controlled Trial (BiPOWR). BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2023, 24, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  25. Tabeling, C.S.; Lemans, J.V.C.; Top, A.; Scholten, E.P.; Stempels, H.W.; Schlösser, T.P.C.; Ito, K.; Castelein, R.M.; Kruyt, M.C. The Spring Distraction System for Growth-Friendly Surgical Treatment of Early Onset Scoliosis: A Preliminary Report on Clinical Results and Safety after Design Iterations in a Prospective Clinical Trial. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
Table 1. Radiological outcomes of MCGR patient cohort. FFU means final follow-up.
Table 1. Radiological outcomes of MCGR patient cohort. FFU means final follow-up.
VariableIS (n = 58)
A
SS (n = 42)
B
NS (n = 51)
C
CS (n = 10)
D
Total (n = 161)
Mean (SD) age at MCGR implantation in years7.2 (2.8)8.3 (2.3)7.6 (3.1)8.4 (2.2)7.08 (2.3)
Mean (SD) FFU in months before graduation surgery37.5 (22.5)32.5 (23.2)35.1 (21.8)36.2 (22.3)35.8 (23.2)
Mean (SD) preoperative major curve, degrees85.3 (22)82.5 (24)88.2 (25)81.9 (19)86.2 (21)
Mean (SD) postoperative major curve, degrees45.3 (12)51.2 (16)44.8 (11)44.6 (10)46.9 (14)
Mean (SD) major curve at FFU before graduation surgery, degrees49.6 (10)55.6 (9)48.2 (8)49.2 (10)50.2 (11)
Mean (SD) preoperative thoracic kyphosis, degrees55.2 (21)39.4 (19)35.3 (17)47.1 (19)47.2 (20)
Mean (SD) postoperative thoracic kyphosis, degrees40.1 (18)38.4 (16)33.2 (15)39.3 (14)47.1 (17)
Mean (SD) max. thoracic kyphosis at FFU before graduation surgery, degrees32.6 (8.4)36.4 (9.2)34.5 (8.2)37.2 (7.8)34.8 (8.6)
Mean (SD) preoperative lumbar lordosis, degrees45.7 (16)40.2 (15)45.8 (14)41.7 (13)44.2 (14)
Mean (SD) postoperative lumbar lordosis, degrees41.9 (12)42.4 (11)36.9 (12)37.7 (13)39 (12)
Mean (SD) lumbar lordosis at FFU before graduation surgery, degrees46.5 (8.8)37.8 (12.6)39.4 (11.2)40.2 (12.6)45.8 (11.8)
Mean (SD) preoperative T1–T12 height in mm138 (34)158 (38)165 (41)142 (38)166 (36)
Mean (SD) postoperative T1–T12 height in mm165 (37)183 (39)190 (38)171 (38)188 (39)
Mean (SD) T1–T12 height in mm at FFU
before graduation surgery
186 (39)201 (36)204 (35)183 (38)208 (36)
Preoperative vs. FFU comparisonsp < 0.001p < 0.001p < 0.001p < 0.001p < 0.001
Postoperative comparisons
A vs. B
p > 0.05
A vs. C
p > 0.05
A vs. D
p < 0.001
B vs. C
p > 0.05
B vs. D
p < 0.001
C vs. D
p < 0.001
Mean (SD) preoperative T1–S1
height in mm
282 (58)293 (62)282 (65)262 (58)295 (65)
Mean (SD) postoperative T1–S1
height in mm
317 (55)328 (58)315 (58)297 (54)328 (63)
Mean (SD) T1–S1
height in mm at FFU
before graduation surgery
348 (52)354 (55)340 (48)317 (51)360 (58)
Preoperative vs. FFU comparisonsp < 0.001p < 0.001p < 0.001p < 0.001p < 0.001
Postoperative comparisons
A vs. B
p < 0.001
A vs. C
p < 0.001
A vs. D
p > 0.05
B vs. C
p > 0.05
B vs. D
p < 0.001
C vs. D
p > 0.05
Mean preoperative T1–T12
height obtained during initial correction in %
56%58%64%70%52%
Mean (SD) preoperative T1–T12
height obtained during FFU correction in %
44%42%36%30%48%
Mean (SD) preoperative T1–S1
height obtained during FFU correction in %
53%57%57%63%51%
Mean (SD) preoperative T1–S1
height obtained during initial correction in %
47%43%43%37%49%
Mean (SD) length of distraction phase, months36.5 (14.2)33.9 (9.8)29.7 (11.2)26.8 (8.8)37.5 (13.8)
A vs. B
p > 0.05
A vs. C
p < 0.001
A vs. D
p < 0.001
B vs. C
p > 0.05
B vs. D
p > 0.05
C vs. D
p > 0.05
Mean (SD) number of lengthenings per 1 year6.5 (1.5)5.5 (2.2)5.8 (1.2)6.2 (1.4)6.7 (1.3)
A vs. B
p > 0.05
A vs. C
p > 0.05
A vs. D
p > 0.05
B vs. C
p > 0.05
B vs. D
p > 0.05
C vs. D
p > 0.05
Mean (SD) T1–T12 growth mm/year at FFU6.2 (1.8)5.8 (1.2)5.5 (1.5)5.2 (1.1)5.95 (2.2)
A vs. B
p < 0.001
A vs. C
p < 0.001
A vs. D
p < 0.001
B vs. C
p > 0.05
B vs. D
p > 0.05
C vs. D
p < 0.001
Mean (SD) T1–S1 growth mm/year at FFU10.8 (3.2)9.1 (2.8)9.8 (2.6)8.8 (2.8)10.1 (3.4)
A vs. B
p > 0.05
A vs. C
p > 0.05
A vs. D
p < 0.001
B vs. C
p > 0.05
B vs. D
p > 0.05
C vs. D
p < 0.001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Grabala, P.; Gupta, M.C.; Pereira, D.E.; Latalski, M.; Danielewicz, A.; Glowka, P.; Grabala, M. Reply to Tabeling et al. Comment on “Grabala et al. Radiological Outcomes of Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods for the Treatment of Children with Various Etiologies of Early-Onset Scoliosis—A Multicenter Study. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 1529”. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 3018. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13113018

AMA Style

Grabala P, Gupta MC, Pereira DE, Latalski M, Danielewicz A, Glowka P, Grabala M. Reply to Tabeling et al. Comment on “Grabala et al. Radiological Outcomes of Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods for the Treatment of Children with Various Etiologies of Early-Onset Scoliosis—A Multicenter Study. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 1529”. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(11):3018. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13113018

Chicago/Turabian Style

Grabala, Pawel, Munish C. Gupta, Daniel E. Pereira, Michal Latalski, Anna Danielewicz, Pawel Glowka, and Michal Grabala. 2024. "Reply to Tabeling et al. Comment on “Grabala et al. Radiological Outcomes of Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods for the Treatment of Children with Various Etiologies of Early-Onset Scoliosis—A Multicenter Study. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 1529”" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 11: 3018. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13113018

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop