Anterior versus posterior approach for the treatment of cervical compressive myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: The purpose of the study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical results of anterior and posterior approaches for the treatment of cervical compressive myelopathy due to cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). Methods: Randomized controlled trials or non-randomized controlled trials published since January 1995 to October 2015 that compared the clinical effectiveness of anterior and posterior surgical approaches for the treatment of cervical OPLL were acquired by a comprehensive search in three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library). A total of 13 studies (1050 patients) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Result: The results indicated that no statistically significant differences between the anterior group and posterior group in terms of preoperative JOA score [P = 0.16, SMD = 0.1 (-0.04, 0.23)] and recovery rate of patients with canal-occupying ratio < 50%-60% [p = 0.89, SMD = 0.03 (-0.35, 0.41)]. The anterior group showed higher postoperative JOA score [P < 0.05, SMD = 0.23 (0.05, 0.41)], overall recovery rate (regardless of canal-occupying ratio) [P < 0.01, SMD = 0.79 (0.31, 1.27)], especially a significant higher recovery rate of patients with canal-occupying ratio > 50%-60% [P < 0.01, SMD = 1.50 (0.52, 2.47)]. However, it also revealed that the postoperative complication rate [P < 0.05, OR = 1.90 (1.08, 3.36)], blood loss [P < 0.01, SMD = 0.63 (0.34, 0.93)] and operative time [P < 0.01, SMD = 1.86 (1.07, 2.65)] were significantly higher. Conclusion: Based on the results above, anterior approach surgery was associated with better overall (regardless of the canal-occupying ratio) postoperative neural function than posterior approach in the treatment of cervical compressive myelopathy due to OPLL. We thought anterior approach especially preferable to patients with canal-occupying ratio > 50%-60%, although it leads to a higher surgical trauma and incidence of surgery-related complications. Posterior approach surgery was relatively safer with lower surgical trauma and incidence of complications. We also suggest posterior approach for patients with canal-occupying ratio < 50%-60%, since the postoperative neural function was similar between the two groups for this part of patients. (C) 2016 IJS Publishing Group Limited. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.