[Anterior versus posterior decompression for the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures with spinal cord injury:a Meta-analysis].

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of anterior decompression and posterior decompression in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures with spinal cord injury, so as to provide a good scientific basis for more effective treatment of thoracolumbar fractures with spinal cord injury.

METHODS

A clinical data about comparative study of anterior decompression and posterior decompression in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures with spinal cord injury was searched and collected. The databases of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wanfang Medical Network were searched by computer. Artificially collected journals included Spine, European Spine Journal, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. Two spine surgeons independently screened the literature according to established inclusion and exclusion criteria and assessed the quality of the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed on the data using Review Manager 5.3 software, the indicators included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative tactile score, postoperative motor score, postoperative vertebral height, hospitalization time, neurological function recovery, efficiency of treatment, postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were enrolled in a total of 1 360 patients, including 680 anterior decompression and 680 posterior decompression. The results of Meta-analysis showed that the anterior decompression group had longer operation time [MD=80.09, 95% CI(36.83, 123.34), P=0.000 3], more intraoperative blood loss [MD=225.21, 95%CI(171.07, 279.35), P<0.000 01], longer hospitalization time [MD=2.31, 95% CI(0.32, 4.31), P=0.02]. And the postoperative tactile score [MD=13.39, 95% CI(9.86, 16.92), P<0.000 01], postoperative motor score [MD=13.15, 95% CI(7.02, 19.29), P<0.000 1], vertebral height [MD=1.36, 95% CI(0.79, 1.92), P<0.000 01] in anterior decompression were higher than that in posterior decompression. There was no statistically significant differences in the efficacy of treatment [OR=1.14, 95% CI(0.56, 2.31), P=0.72], neurological recovery [OR=0.87, 95% CI(0.57, 1.33), P=0.52] between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with posterior decompression, the anterior decompression has the advantages of longer operating time, more intraoperative blood loss, longer hospitalization time, higher postoperative tactile score, higher postoperative motor score, and higher injury vertebral height, But there was no significant difference in the treatment efficiency and nerve function recovery between two groups.