Aims. Vertebral body tethering (VBT) is a non-fusion technique to correct scoliosis. It allows correction of scoliosis through growth modulation (GM) by tethering the convex side to allow concave unrestricted growth similar to the hemiepiphysiodesis concept. The other modality is anterior scoliosis correction (ASC) where the tether is able to perform most of the correction immediately where limited growth is expected. Methods. We conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical and radiological data of 20 patients aged between 9 and 17 years old, (with a 19 female: 1 male ratio) between January 2014 to December 2016 with a mean five-year follow-up (4 to 7). Results. There were ten patients in each group with a total of 23 curves operated on. VBT-GM mean age was 12.5 years (9 to 14) with a mean Risser classification of 0.63 (0 to 2) and VBT-ASC was 14.9 years (13 to 17) with a mean Risser classification of 3.66 (3 to 5). Mean preoperative VBT-GM Cobb was 47.4° (40° to 58°) with a Fulcrum unbend of 17.4 (1° to 41°), compared to VBT-ASC 56.5° (40° to 79°) with 30.6 (2° to 69°)unbend. Postoperative VBT-GM was 20.3° and VBT-ASC Cobb angle was 11.2°. The early postoperative correction rate was 54.3% versus 81% whereas Fulcrum Bending Correction Index (FBCI) was 93.1% vs 146.6%. The last Cobb angle on radiograph at mean five years’ follow-up was 19.4° (VBT-GM) and 16.5° (VBT-ASC). Patients with open triradiate cartilage (TRC) had three over-corrections. Overall, 5% of patients required fusion. This one patient alone had a over-correction, a second-stage tether release, and final conversion to fusion. Conclusion. We show a high success rate (95%) in helping children avoid fusion at five years post-surgery. VBT is a safe technique for correction of scoliosis in the skeletally immature patient. This is the first report at five years that shows two methods of VBT can be employed depending on the skeletal maturity of the patient: GM and ASC. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(2):123–129

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients with early-onset scoliosis (EOS), who had undergone spinal fusion after distraction-based spinal growth modulation using either traditional growing rods (TGRs) or magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGRs). Methods. We undertook a retrospective review of skeletally mature patients who had undergone fusion for an EOS, which had been previously treated using either TGRs or MCGRs. Measured outcomes included sequential coronal T1 to S1 height and major curve (Cobb) angle on plain radiographs and any complications requiring unplanned surgery before final fusion. Results. We reviewed 43 patients (63% female) with a mean age of 6.4 years (SD 2.6) at the index procedure, and 12.2 years (SD 2.2) at final fusion. Their mean follow-up was 8.1 years (SD 3.4). A total of 16 patients were treated with MCGRs and 27 with TGRs. The mean number of distractions was 7.5 in the MCGR group and ten in the TGR group (p = 0.471). The mean interval between distractions was 3.4 months in the MCGR group and 8.6 months in the TGR group (p < 0.001). The mean Cobb angle had improved by 25.1° in the MCGR group and 23.2° in TGR group (p = 0.664) at final follow-up. The mean coronal T1 to S1 height had increased by 16% in the MCGR group and 32.9% in TGR group (p = 0.001), although the mean T1 to S1 height achieved at final follow-up was similar in both. Unplanned operations were needed in 43.8% of the MCGR group and 51.2% of TGR group (p = 0.422). Conclusion. In this retrospective, single-centre review, there were no significant differences in major curve correction or gain in spinal height at fusion. Although the number of planned procedures were fewer in patients with MCGRs, the rates of implant-related complications needing unplanned revision surgery were similar in the two groups. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):257–264

Aims

Magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) systems use non-invasive spinal lengthening for the surgical treatment of early-onset scoliosis (EOS). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of these devices in the prevention of progression of the deformity. A secondary aim was to record the rate of complications.