Comparison of anterior or posterior approach in surgical treatment of thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis: a retrospective case-control study.

BACKGROUND

With the widespread use of the posterior surgery, more and more surgeons chose posterior surgery to treat thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis. But others still believed that the anterior surgery is more conducive to eradicating the lesions, and easier to place larger bone pieces for bone graft fusion. We compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of anterior and posterior surgical approaches and presented our views.

METHODS

This study included 52 thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis patients at Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital from January 2010 to June 2018. All cases underwent radical debridement, nerve decompression, intervertebral bone graft fusion and internal fixation. Cases were divided into anterior group (24 cases) and posterior group (28 cases). Statistical analysis was used to compare the clinical effectiveness, radiological outcomes, complications and other related information.

RESULTS

Patients in the anterior group and the posterior group were followed up for an average of 27.4 and 22.3 months, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in the preoperative, postoperative and last follow-up VAS score, ASIA grade and Cobb angle of local kyphosis. Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences in the improvement of neurological function, loss of kyphotic correction, total incidence of complications, operative time, intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay between the two groups (P > 0.05). But there was greater correction of kyphosis, earlier bone fusion, lower incidence of poor wound healing, less interference with the normal spine and less internal fixation consumables and medical cost in the anterior group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both anterior and posterior approaches are feasible for thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis. While for thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis patients with a single lesion limited in the anterior and middle columns of the spine without severe kyphosis, the anterior approach surgery may have greater advantages in kyphosis correction, bone fusion, wound healing, protection of the normal spine, and medical consumables and cost.