Clinical efficacy of posterior versus anterior instrumentation for the treatment of spinal tuberculosis in adults: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of posterior vs. anterior instrumentation for the treatment of spinal tuberculosis in adults.

METHODS

The electronic databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Springer, EMBASE, Google scholar, and Cochrane library were searched to select the potentially relevant reports that compared the efficacy of posterior instrumentation group (group A) with anterior instrumentation group (group B) in the treatment of spinal tuberculosis. Outcome assessments were correction of angle, loss of correction, fusion rate of the grafting bone, and complications after surgery.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included four trials published between 2006 and 2012, involving 291 adult patients (group A, 154; group B, 137) with spinal tuberculosis. The overall meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences (P>0.01) between group A and group B in correction of angle and loss of correction at final follow-up after operation The pooled WMD (weighted mean difference) of group A and group B was 2.85 (95% CI (confidence interval) = -1.25~6.94) and 1.14 (95% CI=-3.07~5.34), respectively. Besides, no significant differences (P>0.01) were observed in fusion rate of the grafting bone and complications after operation between group A and group B, and the pooled ORs (odds ratio) were 0.65 (95% CI=-0.23~1.85) and (95% CI=-0.19~1.50), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggested that the posterior instrumentation appeared to have the same clinical outcome with the anterior instrumentation in the treatment of the adult patients with spinal tuberculosis.