[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-31431":3,"doc-seo-31431":27},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"file_id":15,"file_url":16,"file_type":17,"file_size":18,"view_count":4,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":19,"is_downloadable":19,"audit_status":19,"page_count":20,"language":21,"language_code":22,"table_of_contents":23,"faqs":24,"seo_title":13,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":25,"read_time":26},31431,3848291630094,"Emma Wilson","https://eur-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45",8,"Research & Report","Outcome of Distraction-Based Growing Rods at Graduation: Comparison of Traditional and Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods","Distraction-based growing rods represent an operative option for early onset scoliosis, and magnetically controlled growing rods have been proposed as a less invasive alternative to traditional growing rods. This study compares radiographic outcomes, unplanned returns to the operating room (UPROR), and complication profiles at graduation using cohorts with traditional (TGR) or magnetically controlled rods (MCGR) followed from index surgery through definitive fusion. Results assess curve, kyphosis, spinal lengths, and mechanical failure patterns across the full treatment timeline.","cbCaitsaSE90F3iE","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaitsaSE90F3iE","pdf",694232,1,11,"English","en","# Introduction\n# Methods\n# Results\n# Conclusions\n# Materials and Methods","[{\"question\":\"What is the main purpose of comparing TGR and MCGR in this study?\",\"answer\":\"To evaluate radiographic outcomes at graduation, along with unplanned returns to the operating room (UPROR) and complication profiles for traditional growing rods versus magnetically controlled growing rods.\"},{\"question\":\"How were the study participants selected and what exclusions were applied?\",\"answer\":\"Patients from the PSSG database who underwent either TGR or MCGR with spine-based proximal anchors were included and followed to graduation; crossover or hybrid procedures were excluded.\"},{\"question\":\"What differences in outcomes did the study report between TGR and MCGR groups?\",\"answer\":\"Both groups showed radiological improvement after implantation, but kyphosis normalization and further curve reduction occurred alongside differences in mechanical complications; the MCGR group had fewer complications and a lower overall risk of UPROR.\"}]",1779483661,28,{"code":4,"msg":28,"data":29},"ok",{"site_id":30,"language":22,"slug":31,"title":13,"keywords":32,"description":14,"schema_data":33,"social_meta":84,"head_meta":86,"extra_data":88,"updated_unix":25},105,"outcome-of-distraction-based-growing-rods-at-graduation-comparison-of-traditional-and-magnetically-controlled-growing-rods","",{"@graph":34,"@context":83},[35,52,66],{"@type":36,"itemListElement":37},"BreadcrumbList",[38,42,46,49],{"item":39,"name":40,"@type":41,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":43,"name":44,"@type":41,"position":45},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":47,"name":12,"@type":41,"position":48},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":50,"name":13,"@type":41,"position":51},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/outcome-of-distraction-based-growing-rods-at-graduation-comparison-of-traditional-and-magnetically-controlled-growing-rods/31431/",4,{"url":50,"name":13,"@type":53,"author":54,"headline":13,"publisher":56,"fileFormat":59,"description":14,"dateModified":60,"datePublished":60,"encodingFormat":59,"isAccessibleForFree":61,"interactionStatistic":62},"DigitalDocument",{"name":9,"@type":55},"Person",{"url":39,"name":57,"@type":58},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-05-22",true,{"@type":63,"interactionType":64,"userInteractionCount":4},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":65},"ViewAction",{"@type":67,"mainEntity":68},"FAQPage",[69,75,79],{"name":70,"@type":71,"acceptedAnswer":72},"What is the main purpose of comparing TGR and MCGR in this study?","Question",{"text":73,"@type":74},"To evaluate radiographic outcomes at graduation, along with unplanned returns to the operating room (UPROR) and complication profiles for traditional growing rods versus magnetically controlled growing rods.","Answer",{"name":76,"@type":71,"acceptedAnswer":77},"How were the study participants selected and what exclusions were applied?",{"text":78,"@type":74},"Patients from the PSSG database who underwent either TGR or MCGR with spine-based proximal anchors were included and followed to graduation; crossover or hybrid procedures were excluded.",{"name":80,"@type":71,"acceptedAnswer":81},"What differences in outcomes did the study report between TGR and MCGR groups?",{"text":82,"@type":74},"Both groups showed radiological improvement after implantation, but kyphosis normalization and further curve reduction occurred alongside differences in mechanical complications; the MCGR group had fewer complications and a lower overall risk of UPROR.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":50,"og:type":85,"og:title":13,"og:site_name":57,"og:description":14},"article",{"robots":87,"canonical":50},"index,follow",{"doc_id":7,"site_id":30}]