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

BACKGROUND: There 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 treatm...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Tianshu, Wang, Zengmian, Ji, Pengcheng, Zhang, Jiaming, Zhang, Chuanyi, Zhang, Lihai
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9011281/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35433975
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-903
_version_ 1784687655020134400
author Wang, Tianshu
Wang, Zengmian
Ji, Pengcheng
Zhang, Jiaming
Zhang, Chuanyi
Zhang, Lihai
author_facet Wang, Tianshu
Wang, Zengmian
Ji, Pengcheng
Zhang, Jiaming
Zhang, Chuanyi
Zhang, Lihai
author_sort Wang, Tianshu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There 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. METHODS: Multiple 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. RESULTS: Finally, 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]. DISCUSSION: The 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9011281
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90112812022-04-16 The efficacy and safety of anterior versus posterior approach for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis Wang, Tianshu Wang, Zengmian Ji, Pengcheng Zhang, Jiaming Zhang, Chuanyi Zhang, Lihai Ann Transl Med Original Article BACKGROUND: There 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. METHODS: Multiple 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. RESULTS: Finally, 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]. DISCUSSION: The 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. AME Publishing Company 2022-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9011281/ /pubmed/35433975 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-903 Text en 2022 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Wang, Tianshu
Wang, Zengmian
Ji, Pengcheng
Zhang, Jiaming
Zhang, Chuanyi
Zhang, Lihai
The efficacy and safety of anterior versus posterior approach for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title The efficacy and safety of anterior versus posterior approach for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full The efficacy and safety of anterior versus posterior approach for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr The efficacy and safety of anterior versus posterior approach for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed The efficacy and safety of anterior versus posterior approach for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short The efficacy and safety of anterior versus posterior approach for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort efficacy and safety of anterior versus posterior approach for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9011281/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35433975
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-903
work_keys_str_mv AT wangtianshu theefficacyandsafetyofanteriorversusposteriorapproachforthetreatmentofthoracolumbarburstfracturesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wangzengmian theefficacyandsafetyofanteriorversusposteriorapproachforthetreatmentofthoracolumbarburstfracturesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jipengcheng theefficacyandsafetyofanteriorversusposteriorapproachforthetreatmentofthoracolumbarburstfracturesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhangjiaming theefficacyandsafetyofanteriorversusposteriorapproachforthetreatmentofthoracolumbarburstfracturesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhangchuanyi theefficacyandsafetyofanteriorversusposteriorapproachforthetreatmentofthoracolumbarburstfracturesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhanglihai theefficacyandsafetyofanteriorversusposteriorapproachforthetreatmentofthoracolumbarburstfracturesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wangtianshu efficacyandsafetyofanteriorversusposteriorapproachforthetreatmentofthoracolumbarburstfracturesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wangzengmian efficacyandsafetyofanteriorversusposteriorapproachforthetreatmentofthoracolumbarburstfracturesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jipengcheng efficacyandsafetyofanteriorversusposteriorapproachforthetreatmentofthoracolumbarburstfracturesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhangjiaming efficacyandsafetyofanteriorversusposteriorapproachforthetreatmentofthoracolumbarburstfracturesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhangchuanyi efficacyandsafetyofanteriorversusposteriorapproachforthetreatmentofthoracolumbarburstfracturesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhanglihai efficacyandsafetyofanteriorversusposteriorapproachforthetreatmentofthoracolumbarburstfracturesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis