SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Anterior versus posterior approaches in thoracic discectomies: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Thoracic discectomy is performed via anterior or posterior approaches through different techniques. An updated comparison incorporating recent research is needed to inform clinical decision-making and guide future studies. A comprehensive search identified relevant studies, and meta-analyses evaluated neurological outcomes, complications, reoperations, and surgical efficiency metrics, including estimated blood loss (EBL) and length of stay (LOS). We pooled 37 studies (34 retrospective, 1 trial and 2 prospective) amounting to 27,450 patients. No significant differences were observed between anterior and posterior approaches for neurological improvement (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.8-2.72), neurological worsening (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.07-4.4), transient deterioration (OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.16-15.51), reoperations (OR 1.95, 95% CI 0.54-7.09), surgical site infections (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03-2.02), CSF leakage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.24-9.99), or postoperative neuropathic pain (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.10-4.35). Operative time was similar (SMD 5.42, 95% CI -0.46 to 11.29). Mean EBL was lower for anterior approaches (600.1 mL, 95% CI 246.99-953.23) compared to posterior approaches (1925.1 mL, 95% CI 837.32-3012.88). The posterior approach had fewer overall complications (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.24-0.42) and shorter LOS (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.25-0.71). Subgroup analysis confirmed that open approaches in both groups resulted in fewer complications and higher rates of neurological improvement. The choice of anterior vs. posterior approach for thoracic discectomy depends on patient factors and surgeon preference. Anterior approaches may provide better neurological outcomes but with potentially higher complication rates. Further research is needed to identify the optimal approach for each patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40272599What 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.