A high degree of variability exists in how "safety and efficacy" is defined and reported in growing rod surgery for early onset scoliosis: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT

Established criteria for reporting safety and efficacy have not yet been defined in growing rod surgery for early onset scoliosis. A systematic literature review revealed a high degree of variability in how authors stratified complications and patient outcomes as a means to define safety and efficacy for this challenging patient population. INTRODUCTION: Several publications have reported the safety and efficacy of traditional growing rods (TGR) and magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGR) using various parameters. Radiographic parameters are most commonly used to measure efficacy, while incidence and type of complications are used to assess safety. A systematic review of peer-reviewed articles was performed to identify whether a consensus exists in how safety and efficacy parameters are reported in EOS patients treated with TGR and MCGR. HYPOTHESIS: There is no consensus on the parameters used for reporting safety and efficacy in growing rod treatment for early onset scoliosis. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. METHODS: Four databases were searched on November 10, 2016 to identify all qualified peer-reviewed articles using specific keyword searches. All peer-reviewed articles published in English language reporting any data related to safety and efficacy of the TGR and/or MCGR surgical technique were included. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were scored by modified Downs and Black scoring system (J Epidemiol Community Health 52(6)377-384, 1998) for non-randomized studies. All reported safety and efficacy data were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: Search of the databases resulted in 111 unique citations including PubMed (50), Embase (68 with 21 duplicates), Web of Science (29 with 15 duplicates), and CINAHL (15; all duplicates). Fifty-six of 111 citations were excluded during the review of the titles and abstracts. In addition, 16 citations were excluded at the time of full manuscript review. The remaining 39 articles included 23 TGR (2007-2016) and 16 MCGR papers (2012-2016). The overall Downs and Black score was 63.9 for TGR papers vs. 64.0 for MCGR papers (p = 0.97). Efficacy measures were not consistently reported among the publications. The only consistently reported efficacy parameter in majority (> 90%) of papers was curve size. Complication reporting was highly variable. CONCLUSION: Major curve size was the only consistent parameter to report efficacy in peer-reviewed TGR and MCGR publications. Since complications were not consistently reported, assessing safety of either treatment was infeasible. Establishing standardized safety and efficacy parameters in growing rod surgery for EOS would improve the quality of future studies and makes comparison of different treatment modalities possible. Indeed, other clinically relevant parameters such as health-related quality of life, pulmonary function, nutritional status, and psychiatric and developmental health should also be considered to improve the future safety and efficacy reporting.