Comparison between Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods and Spinal Growth Guidance Surgery for Idiopathic Early Onset Scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: Compare spinal growth guidance surgery (SpGG) and magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGR) outcomes in idiopathic early-onset scoliosis (i-EOS) using three-dimensional true spine length (3D-TSL). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SpGG and MCGR are techniques aimed to correct and control severe progressive spine deformity while maintaining growth. Past studies yielded comparable results between constructs using vertical coronal measures, which fail to account for growth outside plane of measurement due to three-dimensional deformity. METHODS: A multicenter database was queried for i-EOS patients undergoing MCGR or SpGG with minimum two-year follow-up. Patients were included with perioperative and two-year measurements. RESULTS: There were 161 patients (99 female; 31 SpGG/130 MCGR), with a mean age at surgery 8.1 years. 19.3% SpGG and 8.5% MCGR underwent repeat surgeries. SpGG reduced scoliosis from 67° to 26° postoperatively to 35° final (46% correction, P =0.02). MCGR reduced scoliosis 71° to 40° postoperatively to 42° final (34% correction, P <0.001). SpGG had greater coronal curve percent correction than MCGR at two years ( P =0.03). SpGG maintained maximal measured kyphosis (MMK) preoperative to immediate postoperative with increase at follow-up (41° to 43° to 50°, P =0.004). MCGR initially decreased postoperatively (49° to 36°, P <0.001) with an increase at final (+6, 42°, P =0.002). There was a significant change in MMK between SpGG and MCGR (SpGG +9 vs. MCGR-7; P <0.001). Total cohort T1 to S1 height increased (281-314 mm) and at two years (336 mm) ( P <0.001). 3D-TSL didn't significantly change preoperative to immediate postoperative (338-342 mm) for either construct. At two-year SpGG 3D-TSL increased 16.8 mm/y, whereas MCGR increased 14.2 mm/y ( P =0.2). CONCLUSIONS: At two years, 3D-TSL increased for 14.2 mm/y for MCGR and 16.8 mm/y for SpGG. Overall, SpGG and MCGR offer similar outcomes two years postoperatively as assessed by 3D-TSL. SpGG had greater coronal curve percent correction and maintained maximal kyphosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".