title: Anterior approach versus posterior approach for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systemic review and meta-analysis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the clinical outcomes, complications, and surgical trauma between anterior and posterior approaches for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
  
  
  METHODS
  Systematic review and meta-analysis.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for randomized controlled trials or non-randomized controlled trials that compared anterior and posterior surgical approaches for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Exclusion criteria were non-controlled studies, combined anterior and posterior surgery, follow-up <1 year, cervical kyphosis >15°, and cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. The main end points included: recovery rate; Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score; reoperation rate; complication rate; blood loss; and operation time. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to the mean number of surgical segments.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of eight studies were included in the meta-analysis; none of which were randomized controlled trials. All of the selected studies were of high quality as indicated by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. In five studies involving 351 patients, the preoperative JOA score was similar between the anterior and posterior groups [P > 0.05, WMD: -0.00 (-0.56, 0.56)]. In four studies involving 268 patients, the postoperative JOA score was higher in the anterior group compared with the posterior group [P < 0.05, WMD: 0.79 (0.16, 1.42)]. For recovery rate, there was significant heterogeneity among the four studies involving 304 patients, hence, only descriptive analysis was performed. In seven studies involving 447 patients, the postoperative complication rate was significant higher in the anterior group compared with the posterior group [P < 0.05, odds ratio: 2.60 (1.63, 4.15)]. Of the 245 patients in the 8 studies who received anterior surgery, 21 (8.57%) received reoperation. Of the 285 patients who received posterior surgery, only 1 (0.3%) received reoperation. The reoperation rate was significantly higher in the anterior group compared with the posterior group (P < 0.001). In the 3 studies involving 236 patients compared subtotal corpectomy and laminoplasty/laminectomy, blood loss and operation time were significantly higher in the anterior subtotal corpectomy group compared with the posterior laminoplasty/laminectomy group [P < 0.05, WMD: 150.10 (63.53, 236.66) and P < 0.05, WMD: 59.17 (45.69, 72.66)].
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The anterior approach was associated with better postoperative neural function than the posterior approach in the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. There was no apparent difference in the neural function recovery rate. The complication and reoperation rates were significantly higher in the anterior group compared with the posterior group. The surgical trauma associated with corpectomy was significantly higher than that associated with laminoplasty/laminectomy.
authors: Tsinghua University Affiliated Beijing Tsinghua Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
authors: Bin
authors: B
authors: Zhu
authors: Yilan
authors: Y
authors: Xu
authors: Xiaoguang
authors: X
authors: Liu
authors: Zhongjun
authors: Z
authors: Liu
authors: Gengting
authors: G
authors: Dang
mesh_terms: D002574:Cervical Vertebrae / Q000601:surgery*; D019299:Decompression, Surgical; D006801:Humans; D019637:Orthopedic Procedures / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000453:epidemiology; D020127:Recovery of Function; D055009:Spondylosis / Q000601:surgery*
references: J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011 Jun;24(4):213-20
references: 20736851
references: Neurosurgery. 2011 Mar;68(3):622-30; discussion 630-1
references: 21164373
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Jan;75(1):119-28
references: 8419381
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Nov 15;24(22):2404-10
references: 10586468
references: Eur Spine J. 2011 Feb;20(2):224-35
references: 20582710
references: Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2005 Oct;16(4):575-87, v
references: 16326280
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Jul 1;26(13):1443-7; discussion 1448
references: 11458148
references: J Neurosurg. 1969 Jun;30(6):714-21
references: 5787848
references: Neurol Clin. 1985 May;3(2):373-82
references: 3894921
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Feb 15;32(4):429-36
references: 17304133
references: J Neurosurg. 1982 Oct;57(4):441-5
references: 7108592
references: Spinal Cord. 2010 Mar;48(3):214-20
references: 19752872
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Oct 1;30(19):2138-44
references: 16205338
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Jun 1;27(11):1168-75
references: 12045513
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983 Jan-Feb;8(1):16-9
references: 6346516
references: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995 Nov;77(6):956-61
references: 7593114
references: Spine J. 2003 Jan-Feb;3(1):68-81
references: 14589250
references: J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Apr;6(4):298-303
references: 17436916
references: Neurosurgery. 2012 Mar;70(3):594-601
references: 22343790
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999 Apr;81(4):519-28
references: 10225797
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Nov 1;36(23):1940-7
references: 21289554
references: Neurosurgery. 2007 Jan;60(1 Supp1 1):S130-6
references: 17204873
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 Nov;18(15):2167-73
references: 8278827
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983 Jan-Feb;8(1):1-15
references: 6867846
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Nov 15;23(22):2455-61
references: 9836362
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Sep 1;21(17):1969-73
references: 8883196
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994 Mar 15;19(6):660-3
references: 8009330
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Mar 1;35(5):537-43
references: 20190625
references: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Mar;92(3):393-400
references: 20190311
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992 Nov;17(11):1281-4
references: 1462201
references: Eur Spine J. 2009 Dec;18(12):1951-6
references: 19662441