Comparison of Long‐Term Clinical and Radiographical Outcomes between the Anterior and Combined Anterior and Posterior Approaches for Treating Lumbosacral Tuberculosis

OBJECTIVE: Both anterior and combined anterior and posterior approaches have been used to treat lumbosacral tuberculosis. However, long‐term follow‐up studies of each approach have not been conducted. We aimed to compare the long‐term clinical and radiographical outcomes between the two approaches. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we included 49 patients with a minimum 6‐year follow‐up between January 2008 and March 2012. Twenty‐four patients underwent the anterior approach (anterior group), and 25 underwent the combined anterior and posterior approach (anterior–posterior group). Student's t test, Mann–Whitney U test, and Pearson's chi‐square test were used to compare the two groups regarding clinical data, such as visual analogue scale scores, Oswestry disability index scores and neurological status, and radiographical data, such as lumbosacral angle, lumbar lordosis, and L5‐S1 height. Furthermore, operative time, length of stay, and intraoperative and postoperative blood loss (IBL, PBL) were recorded. RESULTS: Both groups had satisfactory clinical and radiographical outcomes until the final follow‐up. All patients achieved bony fusion, and no group differences were found in any of the clinical indices. Both groups corrected and maintained the lumbosacral angle, lumbar lordosis, and L5‐S1 height. However, the operative time, length of stay, maximum Hb drop, IBL, and PBL of the anterior group (140.63 ± 24.73 min, 12.58 ± 2.45 days, 28.33 ± 9.70 g/L, 257.08 ± 110.47 ml, and 430.60 ± 158.27 ml, respectively) were significantly lower than those of the anterior–posterior group (423.60 ± 82.81 min, P < 0.001; 21.32 ± 3.40 days, P < 0.001; 38.48 ± 8.03 g/L, P < 0.001; 571.60 ± 111.04 ml, P < 0.001; and 907.01 ± 231.99 ml, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study demonstrated long‐term efficacy of the anterior approach with a single screw fixation, which was as effective as that of the combined anterior and posterior approach, with the advantage of less trauma.