Cargando…
Can a posterior approach effectively heal thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis? Microbiology outcomes of the operative area
BACKGROUND: There was a controversy about surgery approach of thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis (TB) treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the microbiology outcomes of the drainage liquid and the clinical outcomes of a posterior and anterior approach in the treatment of thoracic and lumbar...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6341735/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30670055 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1063-7 |
_version_ | 1783389004677251072 |
---|---|
author | Zhao, Chen Pu, Xiaobing Zhou, Qiang Huang, Xingzhou Zhang, Chengmin Luo, Lei Zhang, Zehua Hou, Tianyong Luo, Fei Dai, Fei Xu, Jianzhong |
author_facet | Zhao, Chen Pu, Xiaobing Zhou, Qiang Huang, Xingzhou Zhang, Chengmin Luo, Lei Zhang, Zehua Hou, Tianyong Luo, Fei Dai, Fei Xu, Jianzhong |
author_sort | Zhao, Chen |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: There was a controversy about surgery approach of thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis (TB) treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the microbiology outcomes of the drainage liquid and the clinical outcomes of a posterior and anterior approach in the treatment of thoracic and lumbar TB. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 105 patients were enrolled in this prospective study from February 2011 to September 2015. Patients were divided into two groups: group A (51 patients, posterior approach surgery) and group B (54 patients, anterior approach surgery). Intraoperative TB samples were sent for Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture (MTBC). Drainage fluid was postoperatively collected for polymerase chain reaction (PCR), acid-fast strains (AFS), MTBC, and DNA molecular detection (DNAMD) analyses. Compare the drainage liquid positive rate of the two groups and estimate relationship between the positive results of drainage fluid and the lesion region. In addition, the clinical outcomes including the bony fusion, relapse rate, complications, and neurological status were collected. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the positive rate of AFS, PCR, DNAMD, MTBC, or any positive rate (APR) of drainage liquid between the two groups (P > 0.05). In both groups, the MTBC-positive rate of postoperative drainage fluid was significantly lower than that of the intraoperative sample (P < 0.01). There was no significant relationship between APR and the lesion region (P > 0.05). All the patients had at least 2 years of follow-up, with an average of 34.4 ± 15.8 months. There were four patients in group A and two patients in group B who had recurrent spine TB, and the rest of the patients had fusion in the surgical area. There was no significant difference in the incidence of TB recurrence or other complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). All the patients with neurological dysfunction had improved after surgery. CONCLUSION: Compared with anterior approach surgery, posterior approach surgery had equal effectiveness of debridement. The two kinds of surgery can effectively clear the lesions surrounding the spine and heal thoracic and lumbar TB. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6341735 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63417352019-01-24 Can a posterior approach effectively heal thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis? Microbiology outcomes of the operative area Zhao, Chen Pu, Xiaobing Zhou, Qiang Huang, Xingzhou Zhang, Chengmin Luo, Lei Zhang, Zehua Hou, Tianyong Luo, Fei Dai, Fei Xu, Jianzhong J Orthop Surg Res Research Article BACKGROUND: There was a controversy about surgery approach of thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis (TB) treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the microbiology outcomes of the drainage liquid and the clinical outcomes of a posterior and anterior approach in the treatment of thoracic and lumbar TB. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 105 patients were enrolled in this prospective study from February 2011 to September 2015. Patients were divided into two groups: group A (51 patients, posterior approach surgery) and group B (54 patients, anterior approach surgery). Intraoperative TB samples were sent for Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture (MTBC). Drainage fluid was postoperatively collected for polymerase chain reaction (PCR), acid-fast strains (AFS), MTBC, and DNA molecular detection (DNAMD) analyses. Compare the drainage liquid positive rate of the two groups and estimate relationship between the positive results of drainage fluid and the lesion region. In addition, the clinical outcomes including the bony fusion, relapse rate, complications, and neurological status were collected. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the positive rate of AFS, PCR, DNAMD, MTBC, or any positive rate (APR) of drainage liquid between the two groups (P > 0.05). In both groups, the MTBC-positive rate of postoperative drainage fluid was significantly lower than that of the intraoperative sample (P < 0.01). There was no significant relationship between APR and the lesion region (P > 0.05). All the patients had at least 2 years of follow-up, with an average of 34.4 ± 15.8 months. There were four patients in group A and two patients in group B who had recurrent spine TB, and the rest of the patients had fusion in the surgical area. There was no significant difference in the incidence of TB recurrence or other complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). All the patients with neurological dysfunction had improved after surgery. CONCLUSION: Compared with anterior approach surgery, posterior approach surgery had equal effectiveness of debridement. The two kinds of surgery can effectively clear the lesions surrounding the spine and heal thoracic and lumbar TB. BioMed Central 2019-01-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6341735/ /pubmed/30670055 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1063-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Zhao, Chen Pu, Xiaobing Zhou, Qiang Huang, Xingzhou Zhang, Chengmin Luo, Lei Zhang, Zehua Hou, Tianyong Luo, Fei Dai, Fei Xu, Jianzhong Can a posterior approach effectively heal thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis? Microbiology outcomes of the operative area |
title | Can a posterior approach effectively heal thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis? Microbiology outcomes of the operative area |
title_full | Can a posterior approach effectively heal thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis? Microbiology outcomes of the operative area |
title_fullStr | Can a posterior approach effectively heal thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis? Microbiology outcomes of the operative area |
title_full_unstemmed | Can a posterior approach effectively heal thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis? Microbiology outcomes of the operative area |
title_short | Can a posterior approach effectively heal thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis? Microbiology outcomes of the operative area |
title_sort | can a posterior approach effectively heal thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis? microbiology outcomes of the operative area |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6341735/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30670055 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1063-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhaochen canaposteriorapproacheffectivelyhealthoracicandlumbartuberculosismicrobiologyoutcomesoftheoperativearea AT puxiaobing canaposteriorapproacheffectivelyhealthoracicandlumbartuberculosismicrobiologyoutcomesoftheoperativearea AT zhouqiang canaposteriorapproacheffectivelyhealthoracicandlumbartuberculosismicrobiologyoutcomesoftheoperativearea AT huangxingzhou canaposteriorapproacheffectivelyhealthoracicandlumbartuberculosismicrobiologyoutcomesoftheoperativearea AT zhangchengmin canaposteriorapproacheffectivelyhealthoracicandlumbartuberculosismicrobiologyoutcomesoftheoperativearea AT luolei canaposteriorapproacheffectivelyhealthoracicandlumbartuberculosismicrobiologyoutcomesoftheoperativearea AT zhangzehua canaposteriorapproacheffectivelyhealthoracicandlumbartuberculosismicrobiologyoutcomesoftheoperativearea AT houtianyong canaposteriorapproacheffectivelyhealthoracicandlumbartuberculosismicrobiologyoutcomesoftheoperativearea AT luofei canaposteriorapproacheffectivelyhealthoracicandlumbartuberculosismicrobiologyoutcomesoftheoperativearea AT daifei canaposteriorapproacheffectivelyhealthoracicandlumbartuberculosismicrobiologyoutcomesoftheoperativearea AT xujianzhong canaposteriorapproacheffectivelyhealthoracicandlumbartuberculosismicrobiologyoutcomesoftheoperativearea |