The anterior versus posterior approach for the treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Study

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness and safety between anterior and posterior approach, and determine the best surgical methods for the treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) in the cervical spine.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, CNKI and Wanfang Med Data databases from January 2007 to March 2018. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, cervical lordosis, functional recovery rates, excellent and good outcomes of the surgical approaches, and complication and reoperation rates were analyzed. RevMan 5.3 was utilized for data analysis.

Results

Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis. By comparing the anterior and posterior approaches for the treatment of OPLL in the cervical spine, statistically significant differences were found in the preoperative initial JOA, the postoperative final JOA scores, functional recovery rates, complication rates, excellent and good outcomes of the surgical approaches and reoperation rates. However, no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of the preoperative and postoperative cervical lordosis was noted.

Conclusion

The anterior approach is superior to the posterior approach in terms of the postoperative final JOA score, functional recovery rate, and clinical outcomes. Although the complication and reoperation rates of the anterior approach are higher than those of the posterior approach. We recommend the anterior approach for the treatment of OPLL when patients with occupying ratio ≥ 60%. In addition, high-quality studies with long-term follow-up and large sample size are also needed.