Skip to main content

Does the presence of programmable implanted devices in patients with early onset scoliosis alter typical operative and postoperative practices? A survey of spine surgeons

Abstract

Purpose

Operative and postoperative management of early onset scoliosis (EOS) patients with programmable implanted devices has not been well characterized in the literature. The aim of this study was to describe current practices for pediatric spine surgeons who operate on patients with these devices.

Methods

An electronic survey was distributed to 167 pediatric spine surgeons between January and March of 2021. The survey queried participants on operative and postoperative management of patients with the following implanted devices: vagal nerve stimulators, ventriculoperitoneal shunts, intrathecal baclofen pumps, pacemakers, and cochlear implants. Descriptive statistics were used to assess survey data.

Results

Fifty-three respondents (31.7% response rate) with a mean 16.5 (SD 12.0) years in practice completed the survey. Depending on the type of device present, surgeons report changing their operative plan anywhere from 28.6 to 60.1% of the time when inserting magnetically controlled growing rods. Most respondents reported performing transcranial motor evoked potentials (80.0–98.0%) and monopolar cautery (70.0–92.9%) across implanted devices. Only 10% (n = 5) of surgeons reported complications related to operative and/or postoperative management of these patients. No complications were related to cautery, neuromonitoring, or surgical placement of MCGRs.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates variation in operative and postoperative management of these patients with various programmable implanted devices. Much of this inconsistency in practice is likely due to decades old case reports, constantly changing device manufacturer recommendations, and/or published simulation studies. Reported heterogeneity in management across surgeons necessitates development of published guidelines regarding proper operative and postoperative management of patients with EOS and implanted devices.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Availability of data and material

Data from this study are available upon written request to the corresponding author.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Yellin JL, Wiggins CR, Franco AJ et al (2016) Safe transcranial electric stimulation motor evoked potential monitoring during posterior spinal fusion in two patients with cochlear implants. J Clin Monit Comput 30:503–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-015-9730-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jameson LC (2012) Transcranial motor evoked potentials. Monitoring the nervous system for anesthesiologists and other health care professionals. Springer, Berlin, pp 27–45

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Bales JG, Colon J, Ramadhyani U et al (2007) Electrocautery-induced asystole in a scoliosis patient with a pacemaker. J Pediatr Orthop B 16:19–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bpb.0000236222.68583.4e

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Studer D, Stieger C, Reichlin CJ et al (2019) Spinal surgery with electrically evoked potential monitoring and monopolar electrocautery. Otol Neurotol 40:e7–e13. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002062

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lai LP, Egnor MR, Carrion WV et al (2014) Ventricular peritoneal shunt malfunction after operative correction of scoliosis: report of three cases. Spine J 14:e5–e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2014.08.448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Law J, Shahbazian JH, Elliott MJ (2019) Safe parameters for utilizing magnetic growth rods in patient with a vagal nerve stimulator and case report. J Pediatr Orthop 39:E289–E292. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000001294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pediatric Spine Study Group (PSSG) (2020) Who We Are | XXXX. In: XXXX. https://XXXX.org/who.aspx. Accessed 22 Nov 2020

  8. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R et al (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)-A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42:377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hardesty CK, Janas M (2020) Can you stall a baclofen pump during a magnetic rod lengthening? J Pediatr Orthop 40:e880–e882. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000001644

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Akbarnia BA, Pawelek JB, Cheung KMC et al (2014) Traditional growing rods versus magnetically controlled growing rods for the surgical treatment of early-onset scoliosis: a case-matched 2-year study. Spine Deform 2:493–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.09.050

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mangar D, Atlas GM, Kane PB (1991) Electrocautery-induced pacemaker malfunction during surgery. Can J Anaesth 38:616–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03008198

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kellow NH (1993) Pacemaker failure during transurethral resection of the prostate. Anaesthesia 48:136–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1993.tb06852.x

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Heller LI (1990) Surgical electrocautery and the runaway pacemaker syndrome. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 13:1084–1085. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.1990.tb02160.x

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bailey AG, Lacey SR (1991) Intraoperative pacemaker failure in an infant. Can J Anaesth 38:912–913. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03036973

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cheng A, Nazarian S, Spragg DD et al (2008) Effects of surgical and endoscopic electrocautery on modern-day permanent pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems. PACE Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 31:344–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2008.00996.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Govekar HR, Robinson TN, Varosy PD et al (2012) Effect of monopolar radiofrequency energy on pacemaker function. Surg Endosc 26:2784–2788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2279-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Roland J, Fishman AJ, Waltzman SB et al (2000) Shaw scalpel in revision cochlear implant surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 105:23–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jeyakumar A, Wilson M, Sorrel JE et al (2013) Monopolar cautery and adverse effects on cochlear implants. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 139:694–697. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2013.3297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tien DA, Woodson EA, Anne S (2016) Safety of monopolar electrocautery in patients with cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 125:701–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003489416646792

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Poetker D, Firszt J, Runge-Samuelson C et al (2004) Eight-nerve electrophysiology after electrocautery in cochlear implant patients. Otolaryngol Neck Surg 131:P105–P105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2004.06.143

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

PSSG: Pediatric Spine Study Group: Abdullah Saad Abdulfattah Abdullah, Edward Ahn, Behrooz Akbarnia, Harry Akoto, Stephen Albanese, Jason Anari, John Anderson, Richard Anderson, Lindsay Andras, Jennifer Bauer, Laura Bellaire, Randy Betz, Craig Birch, Laurel Blakemore, Oheneba Boachie-Adjei, Chris Bonfield, Daniel Bouton, Felix Brassard, Douglas Brockmeyer, Jaysson Brooks, David Bumpass, Pat Cahill, Olivier Chemaly, Jason Cheung, Kenneth Cheung, Robert Cho, Tyler Christman, Eduardo Colom Beauchamp, Daniel Couture, Haemish Crawford, Alvin Crawford, Benny Dahl, Gokhan Demirkiran, Dennis Devito, Mohammad Diab, Hazem El Sebaie, Ron El-Hawary, John Emans, Mark Erickson, Jorge Fabregas, Frances Farley, David Farrington, Graham Fedorak, Ryan Fitzgerald, Nicholas Fletcher, Lorena Floccari, Jack Flynn, Peter Gabos, Adrian Gardner, Sumeet Garg, Frank Gerow, Michael Glotzbecker, Jaime Gomez, David Gonda, Tenner Guillaume, Purnendu Gupta, Kyle Halvorson, Kim Hammerberg, Christina Hardesty, Daniel Hedequist, Michael Heffernan, John Heflin, Ilkka Helenius, Jose Herrera, Grant Hogue, Josh Holt, Jason Howard, Michael Timothy Hresko, Steven Hwang, Stephanie Ihnow, Brice Ilharreborde, Kenneth Illingworth, Viral Jain, Andrew Jea, Megan Johnson, Charles Johnston, Morgan Jones, Judson Karlen, Lawrence Karlin, Danielle Katz, Noriaki Kawakami, Brian Kelly, Derek Kelly, Raymond Knapp, Paul Koljonen, Kenny Kwan, Hubert Labelle, Robert Lark, A. Noelle Larson, William Lavelle, Lawrence Lenke, Sean Lew, Gertrude Li, Craig Louer, Scott Luhmann, Jean-Marc Mac-Thiong, Stuart Mackenzie, Erin MacKintosh, Francesco Mangano, David Marks, Sanchez Marquez, Jonathan Martin, Jeffrey Martus, Antonia Matamalas, Oscar Mayer, Richard McCarthy, Amy McIntosh, Jessica McQuerry, Jwalant Mehta, Lionel Metz, Daniel Miller, Firoz Miyanji, Greg Mundis, Josh Murphy, Robert Murphy, Karen Myung, Susan Nelson, Peter Newton, Matthew Newton Ede, Cynthia Nguyen, Susana Nunez, Matthew Oetgen, Timothy Oswald, Jean Ouellet, Josh Pahys, Kathryn Palomino, Stefan Parent, Alejandro Peiro Garcia, Ferran Pellise, Joseph Perra, Jonathan Phillips, Javier Pizones, Selina Poon, Nigel Price, Norman Ramirez-Lluch, Brandon Ramo, Gregory Redding, Todd Ritzman, Luis Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez-Olaverri, David Roye, Benjamin Roye, Lisa Saiman, Amer Samdani, Francisco Sanchez Perez-Grueso, James Sanders, Jeffrey Sawyer, Christina Sayama, Michael Schmitz, Jacob Schulz, Richard Schwend, Suken Shah, Jay Shapiro, Harry Shufflebarger, David Skaggs, Kevin Smit, John Smith, Brian Snyder, Paul Sponseller, George Stephen, Joe Stone, Peter Sturm, Hamdi Sukkarieh, Ishaan Swarup, Michal Szczodry, John Thometz, George Thompson, Tanaka Tomoko, Walter Truong, Raphael Vialle, Michael Vitale, John Vorhies, Eric Wall, Shengru Wang, Bill Warner, Stuart Weinstein, Michelle Welborn, Klane White, David Wrubel, Nan Wu, Kwadwo Yankey, Burt Yaszay, Muharrem Yazici, Terry Jianguo Zhang.

Funding

Funding for this research was provided by the Spine Research Fund of Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Contributions

RM: interpretation of data for the work; drafting of the work; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. SM: substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; acquisition, and analysis of data for the work; critically revising the work for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. JB: substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; critically revising the work for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. PC: substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; critically revising the work for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. RF: substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; critically revising the work for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. YL: substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; critically revising the work for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Pediatric Spine Study Group: substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; critically revising the work for important intellectual content; Final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. WT: substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data for the work; critically revising the work for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Walter H. Truong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

This study was reviewed by a University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board and determined to qualify as “not human research”.

Consent to participate

Not required by the IRB.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The members of Pediatric Spine Study Group are mentioned in Acknowledgements section.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix 1 Surgeon survey on programmable implanted devices

figure a
figure b
figure c
figure d
figure e
figure f
figure g

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McMahon, R., Morgan, S.J., Brooks, J.T. et al. Does the presence of programmable implanted devices in patients with early onset scoliosis alter typical operative and postoperative practices? A survey of spine surgeons. Spine Deform 10, 951–964 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-022-00477-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-022-00477-w

Keywords

  • Early onset scoliosis
  • Spine
  • Surgery
  • Implanted devices