Study Design: Retrospective study. Aim: To retrospectively evaluate and compare the long-term outcome of anterior vertebral
body reconstruction in tuberculosis (TB) of the dorsal spine by direct anterior-versus-posterior
approach. Materials and Methods: A total of 127 patients operated by posterior approach, 118 by anterior for TB-thoracic
spine with at least 1-year follow-up were included and retrospectively analyzed. Patients
were assessed clinically, radiologically and data regarding age, sex, levels involved,
surgical approach, operative time, blood loss, neurological recovery using Frankel
grade, pre- and post-operative kyphosis, % correction of kyphosis, time for fusion,
fusion grading using Bridwell criteria, % loss of correction, mobilization time and
complications if any were collected, analyzed, compared in anterior-v/s-posterior
approaches. Results: The mean age in anterior-approach was 36.03 and 39.83 years in posterior. Mean operative
time in anterior-approach was 6.11 and 5 h in posterior. Mean blood loss of 1.6 L
in anterior approach and 1.11 L in posterior. Mean preoperative kyphosis angle in
posterior-approach was 34.803°and 11.286° (P < 0.001) at 3 months postopandtotal correction
of 67.216%. Mean preoperative kyphosis angle in anterior-approach was 41.154° and
9.498° at 3 months postopandtotal correction of 77.467% (P < 0.001). Mean loss of
correction at 1 year was 4.186°in posterior-approach and 6.184°in anterior. The mean
time for fusion was 4.69 months in anterior-approach while 6.34 months in posterior
as per Bridwell criteria. Meantime for mobilization in posterior-approach was 1.18
and 2.51 weeks in anterior. Significant improvement in neurology was seen in patients
operated by either approach, slightly better in anterior. Complications were more
in posterior-approach. Conclusions: Anterior-approach allows for thorough debridement, neural decompression, better anterior
column reconstruction, and deformity correction under direct vision than posterior.
Direct cord visualization while correcting kyphosis reduces the chances of neurological
complications significantly. Both approaches have unique advantages and limitations.
Though the posterior approach is easy to master, results shown by the anterior cannot
be overseen. To conclude, better functional outcome and significantly better kyphosis
correction are seen with anterior-approach, which are strong pointers favoring it.
Key-words:
Anterior column reconstruction - bridwell criteria - frankel grade - kyphosis - thoracic
spine - tuberculosis
