The MAGnetic Expansion Control (MAGEC) system
is used increasingly in the management of early-onset scoliosis.
Good results have been published, but there have been recent reports
identifying implant failures that may be associated with significant
metallosis surrounding the implants. This article aims to present
the current knowledge regarding the performance of this implant,
and the potential implications and strategies that may be employed
to identify and limit any problems. We urge surgeons to apply caution to patient and construct selection;
engage in prospective patient registration using a spine registry;
ensure close clinical monitoring until growth has ceased; and send
all explanted MAGEC rods for independent analysis. The MAGEC system may be a good instrumentation system for the
treatment of early-onset scoliosis. However, it is innovative and
like all new technology, especially when deployed in a paediatric
population, robust systems to assess long-term outcome are required
to ensure that patient safety is maintained. Cite this article:
Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component continues to be the most common indication for revision of total hip replacements in younger patients. Early in the evolution of the cemented hip, arthroplasty surgeons switched from removal to retention of the acetabular subchondral bone plate, theorising that unfavourable mechanical forces were the cause of loosening at the bone-cement interface. It is now known that the cause of aseptic loosening is probably biological rather than mechanical and removing the subchondral bone plate may enhance biological fixation of cement to bone. With this in mind, perhaps it is time to revive removal of the subchondral bone as a standard part of acetabular preparation.
We review the history and literature of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Resurfacing and the science behind it continues to evolve. Recent results, particularly from the national arthroplasty registers, have spread disquiet among both surgeons and patients. A hip resurfacing arthroplasty is not a total hip replacement, but should perhaps be seen as a means of delaying it. The time when hip resurfacing is offered to a patient may be different from that for a total hip replacement. The same logic can apply to the timing of revision surgery. Consequently, the comparison of resurfacing with total hip replacement may be a false one. Nevertheless, the need for innovative solutions for young arthroplasty patients is clear. Total hip replacement can be usefully delayed in many of these patients by the use of hip resurfacing arthroplasty.
