Single Posterior Approach versus Combined Anterior and Posterior Approach in the Treatment of Spinal Tuberculosis: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Spinal tuberculosis is the most common form of tuberculosis affecting bone and often needs surgical treatment. Single anterior, single posterior, and combined anterior and posterior approaches are the 3 most commonly used approaches in surgical treatment. Clinically, the choice of optimal surgical approach remains controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate clinical efficacy of single posterior approach versus combined anterior and posterior approach. Studies comparing surgical treatment of spinal tuberculosis by single posterior approach versus combined anterior and posterior approach were identified in a literature search conducted from study inception to July 2020. Selection of studies, extraction of data, and evaluation of bias risk of studies were performed independently by 2 authors, and meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software. The meta-analysis included 15 studies and 793 spinal tuberculosis cases. Single posterior approach was used in 397 patients, and combined anterior and posterior approach was used in 396 patients. There were no statistical differences in visual analog scale score (P= 0.51), correction of Cobb angle (P= 0.14), neurological improvement (P= 0.71), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (P= 0.32), C-reactive protein after operation (P= 0.81), and loss of correction at final follow-up (P= 0.44) between approaches. Single posterior approach was associated with less intraoperative hemorrhage (P < 0.00001), shorter operative time (P < 0.00001), shorter length of hospital stay (P < 0.00001), and fewer complications (P < 0.00001). Combined anterior and posterior approach was associated with shorter fusion time (P=0.04). Both approaches can achieve satisfactory clinical outcomes. Posterior-only approach can safely and effectively achieve lesion débridement, decompression, and stability reconstruction and maintenance with advantages of less invasive surgery, less bleeding, shorter surgery time and hospital stay, and fewer complications and seems to be superior to combined posterior-anterior approach.