Posterior-only vs. combined posterior-anterior approaches in treating lumbar and lumbosacral spinal tuberculosis: a retrospective study with minimum 7-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND

There is no comparative study with long-term follow-up between posterior-only and combined posterior-anterior approaches in treating lumbar spinal tuberculosis (LSTB) and lumbosacral spinal tuberculosis (LSSTB). This retrospective study aimed to compare and evaluate the long-term outcomes of these two surgical approaches in LSTB and LSSTB.

METHODS

Thirty patients with LSTB and 12 patients with LSSTB underwent posterior-only approach (group A); 26 patients with LSTB and 14 patients with LSSTB were managed with combined posterior-anterior approaches (group B). Analysis and comparison in clinical and radiographic outcomes between the two groups were performed.

RESULTS

The intra-operative bleeding amount, surgery time, and hospitalization days in group A were less than that in group B (P < 0.05). These patients were followed for a minimum of 7 years. All patients achieved completely healing within 2-year follow-up. Bony fusion was obtained in all patients. The visual analog scale, Japanese Orthopedic Association score, Oswestry Disability index, and Kirkaldy-Willis functional evaluation at the final visit demonstrated that all patients in both groups achieved satisfactory results. There was no significant difference in angle correction or maintaining correction between combined posterior-anterior approaches and posterior-only approach (P > 0.05). Complications occurred in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both combined posterior-anterior approaches and posterior-only approach can achieve satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes of long-term in treating LSTB and LSSTB, while posterior-only approach can safely and effectively achieve lesion debridement, decompression, and stability reconstruction and maintenance with the advantages of less invasive surgery, less bleeding, shorter surgery time, and hospital stay, and fewer complications. So, posterior-only approach seemed to be superior to the combined posterior-anterior one.