Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22

Thread: Problems identified with all growing rods including MAGEC

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    8,901

    Problems identified with all growing rods including MAGEC

    In Vivo Distraction Force and Length Measurements of Growing Rods: Which Factors Influence the Ability to Lengthen?

    Noordeen, Hilali M.; Shah, Suken A.; Elsebaie, Hazem B.; Garrido, Enrique; Farooq, Najma; Al Mukhtar, Mohannad

    Spine. 36(26):2299-2303, December 15, 2011.

    Abstract:

    Study Design. Prospective, intraoperative force measurement in consecutive lengthening procedures in a series of growing-rod patients undergoing lengthening.

    Objective. The purpose of this study was to measure the forces and amount of distraction over time in early onset scoliosis patients treated with growing rods.

    Summary of Background Data. Growing rods are one of the current techniques used in the treatment of early onset scoliosis, and the goal of the growing-rod technique is to achieve deformity correction, maintaining spinal growth at the same time. Gradual stiffening or spontaneous fusion of the spine can interfere with the ability to lengthen. In addition, diminished acquired length with serial distraction are common observations and need to be evaluated and quantified.

    Methods. Distraction forces were measured prospectively during 60 consecutive lengthening procedures in 26 patients. All patients had single submuscular rod constructs with side-to-side connectors. For each measurement, output from a transducer on a dedicated pair of distraction calipers was recorded at zero load status and the force was then recorded at every 1 mm lengthening; length was obtained at each event and was recorded in millimeters.

    Results. The force required to distract the spine doubled at the 5th lengthening procedure (mean 368 N 54 N), and the distraction force was significantly higher at the fifth lengthening compared with the previous lengthening (P <0.01). Mean length achieved at each distraction decreased over time such that by the fifth lengthening, consistently 8 mm or less was achieved.

    Conclusion. Distraction forces increase significantly after repeated lengthening of growing-rod constructs, and the length obtained at each procedure exhibits a decreasing trend.
    Sharon, mother of identical twin girls with scoliosis

    No island of sanity.

    Question: What do you call alternative medicine that works?
    Answer: Medicine


    "We are all African."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    948
    Pooka1 you harm your credibility when you make things up. They only tested one design and it wasn't the MAGEC implant.
    All patients had single submuscular rod constructs with side-to-side connectors.
    This study was an attempt to quantify a few well known problems that this design faces.
    Gradual stiffening or spontaneous fusion of the spine can interfere with the ability to lengthen in addition diminished acquired length with serial distraction are common observations and need to be evaluated and quantified.
    In his recent interview Dr. Kiester explains two important ways that the MAGEC system differs from traditional growing rods.

    The normal fusion rod has many points where it is attached to the spine. The MAGEC rods are attached only on the ends.
    The spine is fully mobile at the end of treatment. The spine does not get stiff or fuse.
    There are probably many other differences but itemizing that list was not the point of the interview.
    Last edited by Dingo; 12-09-2011 at 09:04 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,160

    dingo

    Actually traditional growing rods ARE NOT fixed to the spine at many points, they are fixed basically at the top and bottom. This differs from traditional, definitive fusion rods which of course do attach to the spine at many points.

    It is an accepted fact that growing rods can over time lead to self-fusion of the vertebrae due I think to friction of the rods over the spine, and also the fact that the spine is pretty well immobilized by the rods. Therefore Dr Keister's device would be likely to have these same limitations. Just because these consequences are undesirable doesn't mean Keister's new device won't experience the same problems.
    Gayle, age 49
    Oct 2010 fusion T8-sacrum w/ pelvic fixation
    Feb 2012 lumbar revision for broken rods @ L2-3-4
    Sept 2015 major lumbar A/P revision for broken rods @ L5-S1


    mom of Leah, 15 y/o, Diagnosed '08 with 26* T JIS (age 6)
    5/10 VBS Dr Luhmann Shriners St Louis
    5/16 6 yrs post-op, 24*T/ 22* L, mild increase in curves, watching

    also mom of Torrey, 12 y/o son, 16* T, stable

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    948
    Leahdragonfly

    Dr. Kiester wrote that his device does not cause the spine to get "stiff or fuse".

    When you tested the MAGEC implant did you get different results?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    8,901
    Quote Originally Posted by Dingo View Post
    Pooka1 you harm your credibility when you make things up. They only tested one design and it wasn't the MAGEC implant.


    This study was an attempt to quantify a few well known problems that this design faces.


    In his recent interview Dr. Kiester explains two important ways that the MAGEC system differs from traditional growing rods.





    There are probably many other differences but itemizing that list was not the point of the interview.
    Dingo, are you as sure you are correct with your comments as you are that torso rotation works? I'll respond to each point AFTER you answer.
    Sharon, mother of identical twin girls with scoliosis

    No island of sanity.

    Question: What do you call alternative medicine that works?
    Answer: Medicine


    "We are all African."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    8,901
    Quote Originally Posted by Dingo View Post
    Leahdragonfly

    Dr. Kiester wrote that his device does not cause the spine to get "stiff or fuse".

    When you tested the MAGEC implant did you get different results?
    Are you sure you know what you are talking about and not confusing two different things as you are that Torso rotation works?

    I will respond AFTER you answer.
    Sharon, mother of identical twin girls with scoliosis

    No island of sanity.

    Question: What do you call alternative medicine that works?
    Answer: Medicine


    "We are all African."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    948
    Pooka1

    Your title is...
    "Problems identified with all growing rods including MAGEC"

    You are substantially wrong on the two points that you included in your title.

    #1) MAGEC wasn't tested in this study. Your title is deceptive.

    #2) This study wasn't written to identify new problems. It quantified well known problems with a specific type of system.
    Last edited by Dingo; 12-09-2011 at 02:09 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    8,901
    Quote Originally Posted by Dingo View Post
    Pooka1

    Your title is...
    "Problems identified with all growing rods including MAGEC"

    You are substantially wrong on the two points that you included in your title.

    #1) MAGEC wasn't tested in this study. Your title is deceptive.

    #2) This study wasn't written to identify new problems. It quantified well known problems with a specific type of system.
    Are you as sure about these comments as you are about torso rotation working as you often claim?

    I will respond to these comments AFTER you answer that.
    Sharon, mother of identical twin girls with scoliosis

    No island of sanity.

    Question: What do you call alternative medicine that works?
    Answer: Medicine


    "We are all African."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    948
    Writing under a pseudonym does not protect someone from libel.

    Pooka1 you used false and misleading information in an attempt to harm the reputation of the MAGEC implant. Your actions could lead to significant damages for the Ellipse company.

    The National Scoliosis Foundation is responsible for posts on this forum.

    Linda Racine as a moderator you may want to keep that in mind.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    8,901
    Quote Originally Posted by Dingo View Post
    Writing under a pseudonym does not protect someone from libel.
    Libel requires a false statement. Truth is a perfect defense against libel.

    Pooka1 you used false and misleading information in an attempt to harm the reputation of the MAGEC implant. Your actions could lead to significant damages for the Ellipse company.

    The National Scoliosis Foundation is responsible for posts on this forum.

    Linda Racine as a moderator you may want to keep that in mind.
    Are you as sure my statements are false as you are that torso rotation works?

    I will respond AFTER you answer that.
    Sharon, mother of identical twin girls with scoliosis

    No island of sanity.

    Question: What do you call alternative medicine that works?
    Answer: Medicine


    "We are all African."

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    8,901
    I am beginning to think that people write words here that they don't believe themselves and will not stand by. This helps nobody. Please take this under consideration.

    I will NOT be responding to posts that the authors themselves don't stand behind. What's the point? We might as well be singing (no disregard meant towards Singer).
    Sharon, mother of identical twin girls with scoliosis

    No island of sanity.

    Question: What do you call alternative medicine that works?
    Answer: Medicine


    "We are all African."

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,004
    All what is said in a forum, should to have a foundation, which in an ultimate instance is only a believe. That believe may be false or not, may seems something obvious for someone or ridiculous for others, but should to be explained, so everyone who read what others claimed, can judge by himself.

    For instance, when I said time ago that I thought the gypsum brace used in the EDF techique (stretch before and hold the stretching then) should to be better than any other rigid brace, I explained the foundation leading me to say that and of course I had to do it, taking in mind that many people hate it.
    So is not a matter to be absolutely sure about what we said, but about not saying whatever we wants without none foundations behind.

    If you want to say for instance that braces provoque cancer, of course everyone will requieres to you to explain why are you saying that and you should to show your foundation .
    I believe that Dingo explained before in other threads the foundations leading him to believe that Torso Rotation works.


    Problems identified with all growing rods including MAGEC

    Why are you saying that?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by flerc View Post
    Problems identified with all growing rods including MAGEC

    Why are you saying that?
    If you don't want to reply, please delete this thread

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    948
    Actually I'm concerned about 3 things.

    A) An anonymous poster libeling a promising medical device.
    B) The same poster repeatedly insulting a respected scientist after he was gracious enough to grant this forum an interview.
    C) Linda Racine doing nothing about either despite being politely contacted about the problem.

    And of course everyone knows this problem has been going on for years.

    The truth is Linda Racine is not capable of moderating a simple, web forum. That's a sad testament on her limited abilities and professionalism.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,090
    I'm pretty sure UC Irvine was the party to license the technology to Ellipse Technologies, a privately held company located near UC Irvine facilities. Probably privately held with the parties involved. UC Irvine will know how to protect their investments and their faculty members' reputations if they become aware of it.
    Last edited by Ballet Mom; 12-12-2011 at 04:23 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •