Copyright
©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Orthop. Apr 18, 2017; 8(4): 295-300
Published online Apr 18, 2017. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v8.i4.295
Published online Apr 18, 2017. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v8.i4.295
Modality | Advantages | Disadvantages |
Traditional growth rods/VEPTR | Fusionless surgery | Repeat surgical distractions, psychological issues |
Shilla | Fusionless surgery, no repeat surgeries | Long term results awaited |
Growth potential dependent | ||
Staple/tether | Less invasive, no repeat surgeries | Limited indications, lesser degree of severity |
Parameter | Mean |
Age | 10.6 yr |
Pre operative Cobb angle | 83.1° |
Last follow-up | 65° |
No. distraction/patients | 3.4 |
External remote controller distraction | 12.15 mm |
Actual distraction | 8.9 mm (73.25%) |
Follow-up | 14.3 mo |
Correction mean | 18.3° |
Percentage correction | 21.62% |
- Citation: Johari AN, Nemade AS. Growing spine deformities: Are magnetic rods the final answer? World J Orthop 2017; 8(4): 295-300
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v8/i4/295.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v8.i4.295