Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian Journal of Neurosurgery 2015; 04(03): 157-163
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1568993
Original Article

Dilemma of Approaches to Thoracic and Lumbar Spine: Our 10 Years' Review

Parthasarathi Datta
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Calcutta National Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
,
Debajit Roy Barman
2   Department of Neurosurgery, NRS Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
,
Rahul Varshney
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Calcutta National Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
,
Shuvankar Mukherjee
3   Department of Community Medicine, Calcutta National Medical College, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
,
Sarmila Sen
4   Department of Pathology, Calcutta National Medical College, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
,
Nani Sen
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Calcutta National Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
,
Santanu Ghosh
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Calcutta National Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
,
B. C. Mohanty
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Calcutta National Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
,
Pulak Deb
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Calcutta National Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Lesions of the thoracic and lumbar spine are numerous. These lesions affect one or more columns (anterior, middle, and posterior) of the spine and compress the spinal cord either from anterior or posterior, giving rise to the features of radiculomyelopathy. These lesions can be approached either from the anterior or posterior aspect of the spine. We present our past 10 years' experience regarding the comparison between the two approaches.

Methods Retrospective analysis of records of all patients with thoracic and lumbar lesion treated in our hospital between January 2005 and June 2014 was performed. Over the past 10 years, we came across 186 patients of thoracic and lumbar lesion who were operated either by anterior or posterior approach and were the focus of this study. Follow-up ranged from 6 months to 7 years.

Results All the patients presented with neurological deficits. They were evaluated with investigation protocol of our hospital. Anterior approach was done in 38 cases (n = 38), and posterior approach was done in 148 cases (n = 148). We compared between the two groups in terms of perioperative complications, recovery, persisting symptoms, and mortality.

Conclusion Complete recovery is better in the posterior approach (74.3 vs. 52.6%) and morality is more in the anterior approach (7.9 vs. 1.3%).

Keywords

columns - radiculomyelopathy - thoracic - lumbar


Publication History

Received: 07 April 2015

Accepted: 26 June 2015

Publication Date:
16 December 2015 (online)

© 2015. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Neurological Surgeons' Society of India

 

  • References

  • 1 Royle ND. The operative removal of an accessory vertebra. Med J Aust 1928; 1: 467-468
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Hodgson AR, Stock FE. Anterior spinal fusion a preliminary communication on the radical treatment of Pott's disease and Pott's paraplegia. Br J Surg 1956; 44 (185) 266-275
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Humphries AW, Hawk WA. Anterior fusion of the lumbar spine using an internal fixative device. Surg Forum 1958; 9: 770-773
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Dwyer AF, Newton NC, Sherwood AA. An anterior approach to scoliosis. A preliminary report. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1969; 62 (62) 192-202
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Dwyer AF, Schafer MF. Anterior approach to scoliosis. Results of treatment in fifty-one cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1974; 56 (02) 218-224
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Zielke K, Stunkat R, Beaujean F. Ventrale derotations-spondylodesis (author's transl) [in German]. Arch Orthop Unfallchir 1976; 85 (03) 257-277
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Dunn HK. Anterior stabilization of thoracolumbar injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1984; (189) 116-124
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Dunn HK. Anterior spine stabilization and decompression for thoracolumbar injuries. Orthop Clin North Am 1986; 17 (01) 113-119
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Garg B, Kandwal P, Nagaraja UB, Goswami A, Jayaswal A. Anterior versus posterior procedure for surgical treatment of thoracolumbar tuberculosis: a retrospective analysis. Indian J Orthop 2012; 46 (02) 165-170
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Lin B, Chen ZW, Guo ZM, Liu H, Yi ZK. Anterior approach versus posterior approach with subtotal corpectomy, decompression, and reconstruction of spine in the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures: a prospective randomized controlled study. J Spinal Disord Tech 2011; DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182204c53.
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Chen ZW, Ding ZQ, Zhai WL. et al. Anterior vs. posterior approach in the treatment of chronic thoracolumbar fractures. Orthopedics 2012; 35: 219-224
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Arts MP, Bartells RHMA. Anterior and posterior approach of thoracic disc herniation? A comparative cohort of mini-thoracotomy versus transpedicular discectomies. Spine J 2013; 14: 1654-1662
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Aly T, Sayed ME, Ewais W. Surgical management of unstable thoracolumbar burst fractures: anterior versus posterior surgery. J Spine Neurosurg 2013; DOI: 10.4172/2325-9701.1000124.
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Franic M, Tilzac MK, Pozar M. et al. Anterior vs. posterior approach in 3D correction of idiopathic thoracic scoliosis: a meta-analysis. J Pain 2012; 98: 795-802
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Tuma M, Bagadatoglu H, Boyar B. et al. Anterior vs posterior instrumentation in the treatment of unstable thoracolumbar fractures: A retrospective analysis of 30 cases. Turk Neurosurg 1999; 9: 8-15
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Philippe G, Marjorie S, Marc P. Isolated anterior approach or isolated post approach in the management of thoracolumbar spine fractures?. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004; 86-B (Supp III): 296
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Stancić MF, Gregorović E, Nozica E, Penezić L. Anterior decompression and fixation versus posterior reposition and semirigid fixation in the treatment of unstable burst thoracolumbar fracture: prospective clinical trial. Croat Med J 2001; 42 (01) 49-53
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Xu GJ, Li ZJ, Ma JX, Zhang T, Fu X, Ma XL. Anterior versus posterior approach for treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2013; 22 (10) 2176-2183
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Wu H, Wang CX, Gu CY. et al. Comparison of three different surgical approaches for treatment of thoracolumbar burst fracture. Chin J Traumatol 2013; 16 (01) 31-35
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Freudenberger C, Lindley EM, Beard DW, Reckling WC, Williams A, Burger EL, Patel VV. Posterior versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion with anterior tension band plating: retrospective analysis. Orthopedics 2009; 32 (07) 492
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Erickson MA, Kuklo TR, Emans JB, Puno RM, Mc Carthy RE. Prospective analysis comparing anterior vs. posterior approach for treatment of thoracolumbar idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2009; 10: 53
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Elasawaf A. Late outcome of anterior vs. posterior fixation for thoracolumbar fractures. Int Res J Basic Clin Stud 2013; 1 (02) 22-31
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Muschik MT, Kimmich H, Demmel T. Comparison of anterior and posterior double-rod instrumentation for thoracic idiopathic scoliosis: results of 141 patients. Eur Spine J. 2006; Jul; 15 (07) 1128-1138
    Google Scholar