SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2015
Study on anterior and posterior approaches for spinal tuberculosis: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current update on surgical management for spinal tuberculosis: a scientific mapping of worldwide publications.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety among three surgical approaches for the treatment of spinal tuberculosis: a meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2016Pooled it
- Comparative Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Multi-Segment Thoracolumbar Tuberculosis Treated Through the Posterior "Detour Method" Versus the Combined Anterior-Posterior Approach: A Technique Note and Preliminary Retrospective Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Feasibility and clinical efficacy of minimally invasive techniques in the treatment of type Ⅱ/Ⅲ brucellar spondylitis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical effect of posterior-only approach debridement, intervertebral fusion, and internal fixation for upper thoracic tuberculosis.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2024Article
- Article
- Clinical efficacy of different open approaches in the surgical treatment of thoracolumbar tuberculosis: a single-center retrospective comparative study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- A prospective study comparing three different all-posterior surgical techniques in the management of thoracolumbar spinal tuberculosis.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2022Article
- Biportal endoscopic decompression, debridement, and interbody fusion, combined with percutaneous screw fixation for lumbar brucellosis spondylitis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Evaluation and Management of Pyogenic and Tubercular Spine Infections.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2018Review
- Anterior versus posterior surgical approach for lumbosacral tuberculosis.The Journal of international medical research · 2018Article
- Trends in Spinal Surgery for Pott's Disease (2000-2016): An Overview and Bibliometric Study.Global spine journal · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTimely and appropriate surgical intervention can enhance the stability of spine, eliminate the compression on spinal cord and prevent the further development the complications that may follow. However, there is no optimum surgical approach that has been agreed by surgeons.
objectiveIncidence rate of spinal tuberculosis is still high in many developing countries. Except from chemotherapy, some patients require surgical treatment at certain phases of disease development. However, there is still not a standard operative procedure for spinal tuberculosis in the current research, and we studied the differences of anterior and posterior approach for spinal tuberculosis, to provide guidance for the further operative treatments.
methodsWe searched "Pubmed" (2000.1-2014.7), "Medline" (2000.1-2014.7), "Elseveir" (2000.1-2014.7), Cochrane library (2008.1-2014.7), Wanfang (2000.1-2014.7), and CNKI (2000.1-2014.7) databases with the key words of "thoracolumbar tuberculosis", "controlled randomized trial", "RCT", "anterior" "posterior", and searched for randomized controlled trials for spinal tuberculosis. We compared the operative time, total blood loss, correction of Cobb angle, loss of Cobb angle at final follow-up, fusion time of allograft, time of total hospital stay, and the effectiveness of operative treatment between the anterior and posterior surgical approaches by Revman5.3 software.
resultsFrom 1,523 papers found, we chose eight randomized controlled trials comparing different surgical approaches for the treatment of spinal tuberculosis. The total number of patients was 754, in which 377 were treated with anterior approach and 377 were treated with posterior approach correction of Cobb angle (P < 0.05), and no significant differences were found regarding operation time, loss of correction of Cobb angle in the last follow-up, time of total hospital stay, and fusion time of bone graft (P > 0.05).
conclusionsThere are significant differences between the two operative approaches regarding the correction of Cobb angle, but no significant differences regarding operation time, blood loss, loss of Cobb angle at the last follow-up, total fusion time, and length of total stay in the hospital.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.