Clinical efficacy of different open approaches in the surgical treatment of thoracolumbar tuberculosis: a single-center retrospective comparative study

被引:9
作者
Wang, Tianji [1 ]
Ma, Zhensheng [1 ]
Lei, Wei [1 ]
Wu, Zixiang [1 ]
Xu, Huifa [1 ]
Ma, Tiancheng [1 ]
Li, Tianqing [1 ]
机构
[1] Fourth Mil Med Univ, Xijing Hosp, Dept Orthoped, Xian 710032, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Thoracolumbar tuberculosis; Surgical approach; Outcomes; Complications; LUMBAR SPINAL TUBERCULOSIS; POSTERIOR INSTRUMENTATION; ANTERIOR; DEBRIDEMENT; OUTCOMES; CHEMOTHERAPY; INTERBODY; REGIMENS; FIXATION;
D O I
10.1186/s13018-023-03834-1
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
ObjectiveTo assess the clinical efficacy of three different surgical approaches in the treatment of thoracolumbar tuberculosis.MethodsA total of 138 patients with thoracolumbar tuberculosis treated by open surgery were retrospectively analyzed. The surgical methods were divided into anterior, posterior and anterior-posterior combined. The hospital stays, amount of bleeding, operative time, preoperative, postoperative and last follow-up ESR, CRP, Frankel score, ODI, VAS, correction and loss rate of kyphosis, fusion rate and complications were recorded and analyzed.ResultsThe average follow-up was 66 months. The average hospital stay, operative time and amount of bleeding of the anterior-posterior combined group were higher than other groups (P < 0.05). ESR and CRP of all patients were reduced postoperatively (P < 0.05). No significant difference among the three groups was found in the postoperative correction angle of kyphosis (P < 0.05), while the pre- and postoperative Cobb angle as well as correction rate had significant differences. The posterior approach could achieve better correction, and the loss of correction was more in the anterior group, 40.9 percent of patients performed correction loss. The Frankel score, VAS and ODI were significantly reduced among the three groups, and the incidence rate of complications of the anterior approach was lower than the other groups, with a significant difference (P < 0.05).ConclusionThe anterior approach has more advantages and fewer complications, which is supposed to give preference to and could not be replaced by the posterior and anterior-posterior combined approach.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]   Clinical and radiological outcomes after conservative treatment of TB spondylitis: is the 15 years' follow-up in the MRC study long enough? [J].
Cheung, W. Y. ;
Luk, Keith D. K. .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2013, 22 :594-602
[2]   Anterior and Posterior Instrumentation with Different Debridement and Grafting Procedures for Multi-Level Contiguous Thoracic Spinal Tuberculosis [J].
Cui, Xu ;
Li, Li-tao ;
Ma, Yuan-zheng .
ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2016, 8 (04) :454-461
[3]   Outcomes of Different Surgical Procedures in the Treatment of Spinal Tuberculosis in Adults [J].
Cui, Xu ;
Ma, Yuan Zheng ;
Chen, Xing ;
Cai, Xiao Jun ;
Li, Hong Wei ;
Bai, Yi Bing .
MEDICAL PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE, 2013, 22 (04) :346-350
[4]  
DARBYSHIRE J, 1993, J BONE JOINT SURG BR, V75, P240
[5]  
Griffiths DL, 1999, INT ORTHOP, V23, P73
[6]   Anterior versus posterior approach in surgical treatment of tuberculous spondylodiscitis of thoracic and lumbar spine [J].
Hassan, Khaled ;
Elmorshidy, Essam .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2016, 25 (04) :1056-1063
[7]   One-stage anterior interbody autografting and instrumentation in primary surgical management of thoracolumbar spinal tuberculosis [J].
Jin, DD ;
Qu, DB ;
Chen, JT ;
Zhang, H .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2004, 13 (02) :114-121
[8]   Spinal tuberculosis: a comprehensive review for the modern spine surgeon [J].
Khanna, Krishn ;
Sabharwal, Sanjeev .
SPINE JOURNAL, 2019, 19 (11) :1858-1870
[9]   AMBULANT TREATMENT OF SPINAL TUBERCULOSIS [J].
KONSTAM, PG ;
BLESOVSKY, A .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1962, 50 (219) :26-&
[10]   Spinal tuberculosis, natural history of disease, classifications and principles of management with historical perspective [J].
Kumar K. .
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, 2016, 26 (6) :551-558