Interactions between programmable shunt valves and magnetically controlled growing rods for scoliosis

View More View Less
  • 1 Departments of Neurosurgery and
  • 2 Orthopaedics and Physical Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $505.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

Although the advent of magnetic growing rod technology for scoliosis has provided a means to bypass multiple hardware lengthening operations, it is important to be aware that many of these same patients have a codiagnosis of hydrocephalus with magnet-sensitive programmable ventricular shunts. As the magnetic distraction of scoliosis rods has not previously been described to affect the shunt valve setting, the authors conducted an investigation to characterize the interaction between the two devices.

METHODS

In this ex vivo study, the authors carried out 360 encounters between four different shunt valve types at varying distances from the magnetic external remote control (ERC) used to distract the growing rods. Valve settings were examined before and after every interaction with the remote control to determine if there was a change in the setting.

RESULTS

The Medtronic Strata and Codman Hakim valves were found to have setting changes at distances of 3 and 6 inches but not at 12 inches. The Aesculap proGAV and Codman Certas valves, typically described as MRI-resistant, did not have any setting changes due to the magnetic ERC regardless of distance.

CONCLUSIONS

Although it is not necessary to check a shunt valve after every magnetic distraction of scoliosis growing rods, if there is concern that the magnetic ERC may have been within 12 inches (30 cm) of a programmable ventricular shunt valve, the valve should be checked at the bedside with a programmer or with a skull radiograph along with postdistraction scoliosis radiographs.

ABBREVIATIONS ERC = external remote control; MAGEC = Magnetic Expansion Control.

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $505.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

Correspondence Libby Kosnik Infinger: Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. kosnik@musc.edu.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online October 2, 2020; DOI: 10.3171/2020.6.PEDS20299.

Disclosures The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.

  • 1

    Yang S, Andras LM, Redding GJ, Skaggs DL. Early-onset scoliosis: a review of history, current treatment, and future directions. Pediatrics. 2016;137(1):e20150709.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Murphy RF, Mooney JF III. Current concepts in neuromuscular scoliosis. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019;12(2):220227.

  • 3

    Saito N, Ebara S, Ohotsuka K, Natural history of scoliosis in spastic cerebral palsy. Lancet. 1998;351(9117):16871692.

  • 4

    Dias MS. Neurosurgical causes of scoliosis in patients with myelomeningocele: an evidence-based literature review. J Neurosurg. 2005;103(1 suppl):2435.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Piggott H. The natural history of scoliosis in myelodysplasia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1980;62-B(1):5458.

  • 6

    Müller EB, Nordwall A. Prevalence of scoliosis in children with myelomeningocele in western Sweden. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17(9):10971102.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Phillips BC, Gelsomino M, Pownall AL, Predictors of the need for cerebrospinal fluid diversion in patients with myelomeningocele. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2014;14(2):167172.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Talamonti G, D’Aliberti G, Collice M. Myelomeningocele: long-term neurosurgical treatment and follow-up in 202 patients. J Neurosurg. 2007;107(5)(suppl):368–386.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Adzick NS, Thom EA, Spong CY, A randomized trial of prenatal versus postnatal repair of myelomeningocele. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(11):9931004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Akbarnia BA, Pawelek JB, Cheung KMC, Traditional growing rods versus magnetically controlled growing rods for the surgical treatment of early-onset scoliosis: a case-matched 2-year study. Spine Deform. 2014;2(6):493497.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Cheung KMC, Cheung JPY, Samartzis D, Magnetically controlled growing rods for severe spinal curvature in young children: a prospective case series. Lancet. 2012;379(9830):19671974.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Su AW, Milbrandt TA, Larson AN. Magnetic expansion control system achieves cost savings compared to traditional growth rods: an economic analysis model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(23):18511856.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Limbrick DD Jr, Baird LC, Klimo P Jr, Pediatric hydrocephalus: systematic literature review and evidence-based guidelines. Part 4: Cerebrospinal fluid shunt or endoscopic third ventriculostomy for the treatment of hydrocephalus in children. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2014;14(suppl 1):3034.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Carmel PW, Albright AL, Adelson PD, Incidence and management of subdural hematoma/hygroma with variable- and fixed-pressure differential valves: a randomized, controlled study of programmable compared with conventional valves. Neurosurg Focus. 1999;7(4):e7.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Baird LC, Mazzola CA, Auguste KI, Pediatric hydrocephalus: systematic literature review and evidence-based guidelines. Part 5: Effect of valve type on cerebrospinal fluid shunt efficacy. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2014;14(suppl 1):3543.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Orrego-González E, Enriquez-Marulanda A, Ascanio LC, A cohort comparison analysis of fixed pressure ventriculoperitoneal shunt valves with programmable valves for hydrocephalus following nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2020;18(4):374383.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Hatlen TJ, Shurtleff DB, Loeser JD, Nonprogrammable and programmable cerebrospinal fluid shunt valves: a 5-year study. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2012;9(5):462467.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Riva-Cambrin J, Kestle JRW, Holubkov R, Risk factors for shunt malfunction in pediatric hydrocephalus: a multicenter prospective cohort study. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2016;17(4):382390.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Lavinio A, Harding S, Van Der Boogaard F, Magnetic field interactions in adjustable hydrocephalus shunts. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2008;2(3):222228.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    He Y, Murphy RKJ, Roland JL, Limbrick DD Jr. Interactions between programmable shunt valves and the iPad 3 with Smart Cover. Childs Nerv Syst. 2013;29(4):531533.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Jandial R, Aryan HE, Hughes SA, Levy ML. Effect of vagus nerve stimulator magnet on programmable shunt settings. Neurosurgery. 2004;55(3):627630.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Medtronic. Strata valves: shunt for hydrocephalus. Accessed July 10, 2020. https://www.medtronic.com/us-en/patients/treatments-therapies/hydrocephalus-shunt/strata-valves.html

    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Integra. CODMAN HAKIM programmable valve. Accessed July 10, 2020. https://www.integralife.com/codman-hakim-programmable-valve/product/hydrocephalus-programmable-valves-codman-hakim-programmable-valve

    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 209 209 209
Full Text Views 15 15 15
PDF Downloads 12 12 12
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0