Comparison of the Effects of Magnetically Controlled Growing Rod and Tradiotinal Growing Rod Techniques on the Sagittal Plane in the Treatment of Early-Onset Scoliosis

OBJECTIVE: Comparing the effects of magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) and traditional growing rod (TGR) techniques on the sagittal plane in the treatment of early-onset scoliosis (EOS). METHODS: Twelve patients were operated using dual MCGR technique in one center, while 15 patients were operated using dual TGR technique for EOS in another center. Patients’ demographic characteristics, complications and radiological measurements such as cobb angle, thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, T1–S1 range (mm), proximal junctional angle, distal junctional angle, sagittal balance, coronal balance, pelvic incidence, sacral slope and pelvic tilt were assessed and compared in preoperative, postoperative and last follow-up period. RESULTS: Age and sex distributions were similar in both groups. The mean number of lengthening in the MCGR group was 12 (8–15) and 4.8 (3–7) in the TGR group. Two techniques were shown to be effective in controlling the curvature and in the increase of T1–S1 distance. In TGR group, four patients had rod fractures, six patients had screw pull-out and four patients had an infection, whereas three patients had screw pull-out and one patient had infection complications in the MCGR group. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of cobb angle, coronal and sagittal balance and sagittal pelvic parameters. MCGR can cause hypokyphosis and proximal junctional kyphosis in a minimum 2-year follow-up period. The implant-related complications were less in the MCGR group. However, larger case groups and longer follow-up periods are required for the better understanding of the superiority of one method on other in terms of complications.

Comparison of the Effects of Magnetically Controlled Growing Rod and Tradiotinal Growing Rod Techniques on the Sagittal Plane in the Treatment of Early-Onset Scoliosis

OBJECTIVE: Comparing the effects of magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) and traditional growing rod (TGR) techniques on the sagittal plane in the treatment of early-onset scoliosis (EOS).METHODS: Twelve patients were operated using dual MCGR technique in one center, while 15 patients were operated using dual TGR technique for EOS in another center. Patients’ demographic characteristics, complications and radiological measurements such as cobb angle, thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, T1–S1 range (mm), proximal junctional angle, distal junctional angle, sagittal balance, coronal balance, pelvic incidence, sacral slope and pelvic tilt were assessed and compared in preoperative, postoperative and last follow-up period.RESULTS: Age and sex distributions were similar in both groups. The mean number of lengthening in the MCGR group was 12 (8–15) and 4.8 (3–7) in the TGR group. Two techniques were shown to be effective in controlling the curvature and in the increase of T1–S1 distance. In TGR group, four patients had rod fractures, six patients had screw pull-out and four patients had an infection, whereas three patients had screw pull-out and one patient had infection complications in the MCGR group.CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of cobb angle, coronal and sagittal balance and sagittal pelvic parameters. MCGR can cause hypokyphosis and proximal junctional kyphosis in a minimum 2-year follow-up period. The implant-related complications were less in the MCGR group. However, larger case groups and longer follow-up periods are required for the better understanding of the superiority of one method on other in terms of complications.

Letter to the Editor: Management of Postoperative Discitis

No abstract available.

Spiral and oblique fractures of distal one-third of tibia-fibula: treatment results with circular external fixator

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Spiral and oblique fractures of distal 1/3 of tibia-fibula are relatively common fractures of long bones. Due to their types, aetiology, limited coverage and blood supply, these fractures often lead to union and soft tissue problems.</p><p><b>MATERIALS AND METHODS</b>Twenty-seven patients with spiral and oblique fractures of distal 1/3 of tibia-fibula were treated with circular external fixator (CEF) between January 1997 and August 2000. All the fractures were closed. The type of fractures based on AO classification were A1 (n = 8), A2 (n = 6), B1 (n = 11) and C1 (n = 2).</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The mean framing time was 14.1 +/- 1.8 weeks (range, 12 to 19 weeks), and the mean treatment time was 18.8 +/- 2.2 weeks (range, 15 to 24 weeks). The patients were followed up for 36 to 78 months (mean follow-up time: 51.9 +/- 10.4 months). The results were evaluated for shortness, angulation, rotation, ankle stiffness, pain and infection. After removal of the frames, 11 patients had ankle pain and stiffness, and 3 patients had loss of range of motion in the ankle even after rehabilitation. None of the patients suffered any complications such as shortness, angulation, rotational deformity and infection, and none had loss of motion in the knee.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>CEF might be a preferable alternative treatment for distal tibia-fibula fractures due to its easy application, fewer major complications such as shortness and angulation, early mobilisation and shorter treatment time.</p>