Efficacy and Safety of Posterior Versus Combined Posterior and Anterior Approach for the Treatment of Spinal Tuberculosis: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Surgical treatment is an important strategy for the treatment of spinal tuberculosis (TB). Several approaches have been reported for the surgery. However, no single study has had a large enough sample population to definitively determine whether the single posterior approach is as effective and safe as the combined posterior and anterior approach for the treatment of spinal TB. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of posterior versus combined posterior and anterior approach for the treatment of spinal TB. In this meta-analysis, electronic databases, such as PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google scholar, and Cochrane library, were searched to select the potentially relevant reports that compared the outcomes of the posterior approach (group A) with the combined posterior and anterior approach (group B) in the treatment of spinal TB. Relevant journals and references were also searched manually. Data extraction and quality assessment were according with Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Outcome assessments were operation time, blood loss, correction of angle, loss of correction, hospital stay, fusion time of the grafting bone, neurological improvement, and complications after surgery. Results were expressed as odds ratio for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence interval. Five controlled clinical trials published between 2012 and 2014, involving 253 patients (group A, 129; group B, 124) with spinal TB were retrieved in this study. The overall meta-analysis showed that there were significant differences (P< 0.01) between groups A and B in operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, and complications after surgery. However, no significant differences (P> 0.05) were observed in correction of angle, loss of correction at the final follow-up, fusion time of the grafting bone, and neurological improvement after surgery between groups A and B. The posterior approach appeared to have the same clinical efficacy, but with less operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, and complications compared with the combined posterior and anterior approach in the treatment of sinal TB. However, more high-quality, randomized controlled trials are required to compare these approaches and guide clinical decision-making.