title: Comparison of anterior approach versus posterior approach for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes, complications, and surgical trauma between anterior and posterior approaches for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).
  
  
  METHODS
  Systematic review and meta-analysis.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomized controlled trials or non-randomized controlled trials published up to November 2014 that compared the clinical effectiveness of anterior and posterior surgical approaches for the treatment of multilevel CSM were acquired by a comprehensive search in four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register and MEDLINE). Exclusion criteria were non-controlled studies, combined anterior and posterior surgery and cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. The main end points included: recovery rate; Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score; complication rate; reoperation rate; blood loss; operation time and length of stay.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of ten 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 six studies involving 467 patients, there was no significant difference in the preoperative JOA score between the anterior surgery group and the posterior group [P > 0.05, WMD -0.00 (-0.50, 0.50)]. In four studies involving 268 patients, the postoperative JOA score was significantly higher in the anterior surgery group compared with the posterior surgery group [P < 0.05, WMD 0.79 (0.16, 1.42)]. In five studies involving 420 patients, there was no statistically significant difference in recovery rate between the anterior and posterior surgery groups [P > 0.05, WMD 2.73 (-8.69, 14.15)]. In nine studies involving 804 patients, the postoperative complication rate was significantly higher in the anterior surgery group compared with the posterior surgery group [P = 0.009, OR 1.65 (1.13, 2.39)]. In five studies involving 294 patients, the reoperation rate was significantly higher in the anterior surgery group compared with the posterior surgery group [P = 0.0001, OR 8.67 (2.85, 26.34)]. In the four studies involving 252 patients, the intraoperative blood loss and operation time was significantly higher in the anterior surgery group compared with the posterior surgery group [P < 0.05, WMD -40.25 (-76.96, -3.53) and P < 0.00001, WMD 61.3 (52.33, 70.28)]. In the three studies involving 192 patients, the length of stay was significantly lower in the anterior surgery group compared with the posterior surgery group [P < 0.00001, WMD -1.07 (-2.23, -1.17)].
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In summary, our meta-analysis suggested that a definitive conclusion could not be reached regarding which surgical approach is more effective for the treatment of multilevel CSM. Although anterior approach was associated with better postoperative neural function than posterior approach in the treatment of multilevel CSM, there was no apparent difference in the neural function recovery rate between the two approaches. Higher rates of surgery-related complication and reoperation should be taken into consideration when anterior approach is used for patients with multilevel CSM.
authors.affiliation: Department of Spine Surgery/Orthopaedic Research Institute, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, People's Republic of China, luojiaquan666@163.com.
authors.forename: Jiaquan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Luo
authors.forename: Kai
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Cao
authors.forename: Sheng
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Huang
authors.forename: Liangping
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Li
authors.forename: Ting
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Yu
authors.forename: Cong
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Cao
authors.forename: Rui
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Zhong
authors.forename: Ming
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Gong
authors.forename: Zhiyu
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Zhou
authors.forename: Xuenong
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Zou
mesh_terms: D016063:Blood Loss, Surgical; D002574:Cervical Vertebrae / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D007796:Laminectomy / Q000379:methods*; D065406:Laminoplasty / Q000379:methods*; D061646:Operative Time; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D020127:Recovery of Function; D012086:Reoperation; D013117:Spinal Cord Compression / Q000209:etiology / Q000601:surgery*; D013123:Spinal Fusion / Q000379:methods*; D055009:Spondylosis / Q000150:complications / Q000601:surgery*; D016896:Treatment Outcome
references.citation: Spinal Cord. 2010 Mar;48(3):214-20
references.pmid: 19752872
references.citation: J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013 Jun;26(4):177-82
references.pmid: 22124424
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2009 Dec;18(12 ):1951-6
references.pmid: 19662441
references.citation: Am Fam Physician. 2000 Sep 1;62(5):1064-70, 1073
references.pmid: 10997531
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2014 Feb;23(2):362-72
references.pmid: 24097230
references.citation: Childs Nerv Syst. 2009 Jan;25(1):71-6
references.pmid: 18704445
references.citation: Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2005 Oct;16(4):575-87, v
references.pmid: 16326280
references.citation: Neurosurgery. 2011 Mar;68(3):622-30; discussion 630-1
references.pmid: 21164373
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Sep 1;21(17):1969-73
references.pmid: 8883196
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Feb 15;23 (4):440-7
references.pmid: 9516698
references.citation: Spine J. 2006 Nov-Dec;6(6 Suppl):190S-197S
references.pmid: 17097538
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Jun 1;27(11):1168-75
references.pmid: 12045513
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Jul 1;26(13):1443-7; discussion 1448
references.pmid: 11458148
references.citation: J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011 Jun;24(4):213-20
references.pmid: 20736851
references.citation: Spine J. 2013 Jul;13(7):723-31
references.pmid: 23541452
references.citation: J Neurosurg. 1982 Oct;57(4):441-5
references.pmid: 7108592
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Dec 15;38(26):2247-52
references.pmid: 24108289
references.citation: J Clin Neurosci. 2015 Mar;22(3):566-9
references.pmid: 25487176
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Nov 1;36(23 ):1940-7
references.pmid: 21289554
references.citation: Orthopedics. 2011 Aug 08;34(8):e397-402
references.pmid: 21815583
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992 Nov;17(11):1281-4
references.pmid: 1462201
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Oct 15;38(22 Suppl 1):S173-82
references.pmid: 23962995
references.citation: PLoS One. 2014 Aug 27;9(8):e101933
references.pmid: 25162509
references.citation: Spine J. 2003 Jan-Feb;3(1):68-81
references.pmid: 14589250
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2011 Feb;20(2):224-35
references.pmid: 20582710
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Aug 1;20(15):1732-4
references.pmid: 7482026
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2013 Jul;22(7):1583-93
references.pmid: 23657624
references.citation: Orthopedics. 2014 Feb;37(2):e117-22
references.pmid: 24679196