Cost analysis of a growth guidance system compared with magnetically controlled and traditional growing rods for early-onset scoliosis in the US: an integrated health care delivery system perspective

Luhmann, Scott J.; McAughey, Eoin; Stacey, Ackerman; Bumpass, David B.; McCarthy, R.

doi:10.1016/j.jspd.2017.09.041

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The charge difference in this study largely represented implant cost differences (MCGR: $31,621 vs TGR: $8966) [18], which were significantly higher than implant cost estimated utilized in previous cost-analysis studies [15,16]. Luhmann et al [19] performed a cost analysis of MCGR with implant costs more closely representing the values reported by Oetgen et al [18] and found that MCGR did not meet cost neutrality in comparison to TGR after 6 years of simulated care, further calling into question the cost effectiveness of MCGR at their current price point. Although concerning, it is important to recognize that MCGR implants continue to carry the advantage of avoiding surgical construct lengthening and the potential developmental concerns associated with repeated general anesthesia exposures at young age [20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

The evolving stall rate of magnetically controlled growing rods beyond 2 years follow-up

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGR) have become the dominant distraction-based implant for the treatment of early onset scoliosis (EOS). Recent studies, however, have demonstrated rising rates of implant failure beyond short-term follow-up. We sought to evaluate a single-center experience with MCGR for the treatment of EOS to define the rate of MCGR failure to lengthen, termed implant stall, over time. Methods A single-center, retrospective review was conducted identifying children with EOS undergoing primary MCGR implantation. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of implant stalling, defined as a failure of the MCGR to lengthen on three consecutive attempted lengthening sessions with minimum of 2 years follow-up. Clinical and radiographic variables were collected and compared between lengthening and stalled MCGRs. A Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was conducted to assess implant stalling over time. Results A total of 48 children met inclusion criteria (mean age 6.3 ± 1.8 years, 64.6% female). After a mean 56.9 months ( range of 27 to 90 months ) follow-up, 25 (48%) of children experienced implant stalling at a mean of 26.0 ± 14.1 months post-implantation. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis demonstrated that only 50% of MCGR continue to successfully lengthen at 2 years post-implantation, decreasing to < 20% at 4 years post-implantation. Conclusion Only 50% of MCGR continue to successfully lengthen 2 years post-implantation, dropping dramatically to < 20% at 4 years, adding to the available knowledge regarding the long-term viability and cost-effectiveness of MCGR in the management of EOS. Further research is needed to validate these findings.

show abstract