The efficacy and safety of anterior versus posterior approach for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundThere has always been controversy about the choice of anterior approach or posterior approach for the surgical approach of thoracolumbar burst fractures (TBFs). The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of anterior and posterior approaches in the treatment of TBFs.MethodsMultiple databases including PubMed, Excerpt Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (WOS) were used to search for relevant studies, namely full-text articles comparing the anterior versus posterior approach for the treatment of TBFs, which based on population, intervention, control, outcome, and study (PICOS) framework. Review Manager 5.4 was used to assess the effects of the results among selected studies. The risk of bias of the trials was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Forest plots and funnel plots were also generated for the included articles.ResultsFinally, 723 patients were included in 13 studies which satisfied the eligibility criteria, funnel plots and Egger’s test showed that there was no significant bias in the publications. There were no differences in terms of length of stay [mean difference (MD): −1.31, (−5.31, 2.69); P=0.52], hospitalization expenses [standardized mean difference (SMD): 1.26, (−0.38, 2.89); P=0.13], and return to work between the anterior approach and posterior approach. However, the posterior approach had the advantages of better Cobb angle correction [MD: 2.06, (0.17, 3.94); P=0.03], shorter operation time [MD: 58.29, (35.39, 81.18); P<0.00001], and lower estimated blood loss [MD: 185.92, (131.76, 240.07); P<0.00001].DiscussionThe posterior approach appeared to be superior to the anterior approach in the treatment of TBFs. However, more high-quality randomized controlled trials should be conducted to confirm the conclusions of this study and guide clinical decision-making.