UNASSIGNED: Surgical outcomes of open anterior and open posterior approaches, for thoracolumbar A3 to C3/AO type fractures, are compared.
UNASSIGNED: A PubMed search was conducted from 1990 to 2024 related to anterior, posterior, and combined approaches. Inclusion criteria: Fresh traumatic T10 to L2 fractures, age ≥13 years, ≥10 cases, minimum follow-up 6 months. Exclusion criteria: Cadaveric studies, pathological fractures, reviews, thoracoscopy-assisted, mini-open lateral (MOLA) and minimal invasive anterior or posterior approaches. Coleman Methodology Scores (CMS) (modified for spinal trauma) indicated potential selection bias in the selected studies. PRISMA guidelines were adapted.
UNASSIGNED: Nineteen studies with 847 participants were selected. The average CMS quality score was fair. The anterior approach, although it better decompresses the compromised spinal canal, it is also associated with increased surgical complications compared to the posterior approach. The neurological outcome, the loss of correction and the reoperation rate, were similar to both approaches. This systematic review favors posterior approach.
UNASSIGNED: The anterior approach is demanding and is associated with a higher rate of surgical complications compared to the posterior approach. The limitations of the selected studies included inconsistence in the: 1) approaches selection, 2) classifications of the fracture types and the neurological status and 3) variety of instrumentations used.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42023484222.

METHODS: Systematic review.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of the posterior approach and combined anterior-posterior approach in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with cervical spine fracture by meta-analysis.
METHODS: The databases PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies on the comparison of the posterior approach group and the combined anterior-posterior approach group in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis combined with cervical spine fracture from database establishment to August 2023. The procedure time, intraoperative blood loss, the rates of neurological improvement, mean change in the postoperative neurological function, complication rates, rates of revised surgery, and mortality were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software provided by Cochrane Library.
RESULTS: A total of 11 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 215 patients were included in this study. The posterior approach group had lower intraoperative blood loss than the combined anterior-posterior approach group [Mean difference (MD) = -146.05, 95%CI(-187.40,-104.69), P < .00001]; the operation time was significantly less in the posterior approach group than in the combined anterior-posterior approach group [MD = -95.34, 95%CI(-113.13,-77.55), P < .00001]. There were no statistically significant differences in the neurological improvement rates, mean changes in postoperative neurological function, complication rates, modified surgery rates, and mortality rates.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the posterior approach and combined anterior and posterior approach can achieve good results. Clinicians should develop an individualized approach based on the patient\'s fracture type, degree of spinal cord injury, fracture stability, fracture dislocation, general condition, and underlying disease.

UNASSIGNED: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
UNASSIGNED: To compare the complication rates associated with anterior and posterior approaches for the surgical treatment of unstable hangman\'s fractures.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases to identify comparative studies reporting complications of anterior versus posterior approaches for the treatment of unstable hangman\'s fractures.
UNASSIGNED: The search yielded 1163 papers from which 5 studies were fully included. One hundred fifteen (115) patients were operated on using an anterior approach versus 65 through a posterior approach. The average complication rates for the anterior and posterior approaches were 26.1 % and 13.8 %, respectively. No complications following the anterior approach required pharmacological or surgical intervention (Clavien-Dindo, Grade 1), while 88.9 % of complications following the posterior approach did (Clavien-Dindo, Grade 2).
UNASSIGNED: No significant differences in the complication rates were found when comparing anterior versus posterior surgery for treating a C2 traumatic spondylolisthesis. However, most of the complications presented in the posterior surgery group were more severe.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis was aimed to compare the postoperative clinical outcomes between the supercapsular percutaneously assisted total hip (SuperPATH, SP) and conventional posterior/posterolateral approach (PA) for total hip arthroplasty in patients who have failed conservative treatment for hip-related disorders.
METHODS: PRISMAP guidelines were followed in this systematic review. CNKI, Wanfang, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science databases and the reference list grey literature were searched for studies according to the search strategy. Endnote (version 20) was used to screen the searched studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criterias and extract the data from the eligible studied. RR and 95% CI were used for dichotomous variables and MD and 95% CI were used for continuous variables. All analyses and heterogeneity of outcomes were analysed by Review Manage (version 5.4). Publication bias of included studies was analysed by Stata (version 16.0).
RESULTS: Thirty-six randomized control studies were included. Compared to PA group, SP group had a shorter incision length, less intraoperative blood loss, a shorter length of hospital stay and do activities earlier. Hip function (HHS) was significantly improved within three months postoperatively. Pain of hip (VAS) was significantly reduced within one month postoperatively. The state of daily living (BI) was significantly improved within three months. Patients\' overall health status (SF-36) improved significantly postoperatively. There was no difference in postoperative complications between the two approaches. PA had a shorter operative time and a higher accuracy of prosthesis placement.
CONCLUSIONS: The advantages of SuperPATH include accelerated functional recovery and less trauma associated with surgery. However, it required a longer operative time and implantation of the prosthesis was less accurate than that of PA.

Thoracic disc herniations (TDH) are uncommon compared to cervical and lumbar disc herniations. Surgical treatment of TDH can be challenging due to the anatomical constraints and the high risk of morbidity due to proximity to the thoracic spinal cord. Moreover, the selection of appropriate surgical approach depends on various factors such as the size and location of disc herniation within the spinal canal, spinal level, presence or absence of calcification, degree of spinal cord compression, and familiarity with various approaches by the treating surgeon. While there is agreement that posterolateral approaches can be used to treat posterolateral and central soft disc herniation, there is a lack of consensus on the best surgical approach for central calcified and giant calcified TDH where an anterior approach is perceived as the best option. There is increasing evidence that support the safety and efficacy of posterolateral approaches even for central calcified and giant calcified TDH. This review highlights the evolution of surgical management for TDH based on the past and current literature and the author\'s experience at his institution.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare joint awareness in patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) via the anterior approach (AA) versus the posterior approach (PA). The hypothesis was that patients who underwent THA via AA would have better forgetfulness of the artificial joint.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of major literature databases and bibliographic details was conducted to identify studies evaluating the forgotten joint score (FJS-12) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients operated through the anterior approach (AA) and posterior approach (PA). Out of 234 studies identified, seven studies met the inclusion criteria for review. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and the risk of bias in the included studies. The FJS-12 was evaluated at three months, one year, and beyond 2 years.
RESULTS: The mean FJS-12 at > 2 years was 82.03 in the AA group and 80.32 in the PA group. The forest plot analysis (n = 819 patients) revealed no significant difference in FJS-12 score between these two approaches (MD 2.13, 95% CI [- 1.17, 5.42], p = 0.21; I2 = 60%). However, the joint awareness was significantly lesser in the AA group at 3 months (MD 12.56, 95% CI [9.58, 15.54], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) and 1 year (MD 9.55, 95% CI [7.85, 11.24], p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS: After analyzing the available literature, it was found that THA patients operated through the AA approach have significantly lower joint awareness than those operated through the PA approach in the first year of surgery. However, there is no significant difference in joint awareness between these two approaches after 2 years.
METHODS: III.

UNASSIGNED: Odontoid fractures account for 15%-20% of cervical injuries. Although the operation methods vary in different types, the superiority of overall outcomes of the anterior approach (AA) and posterior approach (PA) in treating odontoid fractures still remains controversial. Thus, a meta-analysis was performed comparing AA and PA for these fractures.
UNASSIGNED: The relevant studies were searched in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, China Biological Medicine (CBM), and Wanfang Database from the onset of conception to June 2022. Prospective or retrospective comparative studies on AA and PA for odontoid fractures were screened, referring to fusion rates (primary outcomes), complications, and postoperative mortality rates. A meta-analysis of the primary outcomes and a systematic review of other outcomes were performed; the procedure was conducted with Review Manager 5.3.
UNASSIGNED: Twelve articles comrising 452 patients were included, and all publications were retrospective cohort studies. The average postoperative fusion rate was 77.5 ± 17.9% and 91.4 ± 13.5% in AA and PA, respectively, with statistical significance [OR = 0.42 (0.22, 0.80), P = 0.009]. Subgroup analysis showed a difference in fusion rates between AA and PA in the elderly group [OR = 0.16 (0.05, 0.49), P = 0.001]. Five articles referred to postoperative mortality, and the mortality rates of AA (5.0%) and PA (2.3%) showed no statistical difference (P = 0.148). Nine studies referred to complications, with a rate of 9.7%. The incidence of complications in AA and PA groups was comparable (P = 0.338), and the incidence of nonfusion and complications was irrelevant. The prevalent cause of death was myocardial infarction. The time and segmental movement retention of AA were possibly superior to those of PA.
UNASSIGNED: AA may be superior in regard to operation time and motion retention. There was no difference in complications and mortality rates between the two approaches. The posterior approach would be preferred in consideration of the fusion rate.

UNASSIGNED: Total hip arthroplasty is a reliable option to treat osteoarthritis. It reduces pain, increases quality of life, and restores function. The direct anterior approach (DAA), posterior approach (PA), and straight lateral approach (SLA) are mostly used. This systematic review evaluates current literature about costs and cost-effectiveness of DAA, PA, and SLA.
UNASSIGNED: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic search, registered in the PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD42021237427), was conducted of databases PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane, Clinical Trials, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, NHS Centre for Review and Dissemination, Econlit, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or comparative cohort studies reporting or comparing costs or cost-effectiveness of either approach as the primary outcome. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed. For comparison, all costs were converted to American Dollars (reference year 2016).
UNASSIGNED: Six systematic review studies were included. RoB ranged from low to high, the level of evidence ranged from 2 to 4, and methodological quality was moderate. Costs ranged from $5313.85 to $15 859.00 (direct) and $1921.00 to $6364.30 (indirect) in DAA. From $5158.46 to $12 344.47 (direct) to $2265.70 to $5566.01 (indirect) for PA and from $3265.62 to $8501.81 (direct) and $2280.16 (indirect) for SLA. Due to heterogeneity of included costs, they were not directly comparable. Solid data about cost-effectiveness cannot be presented.
UNASSIGNED: Due to limited and heterogenous evidence about costs and cost-effectiveness, the effect of these in surgical approach is unknown. Further well-powered research to make undisputed conclusions is needed.

BACKGROUND: There are several approaches to THA, and each has their respective advantages and disadvantages. Previous meta-analysis included non-randomised studies that introduce further heterogeneity and bias to the evidence presented. This meta-analysis aims to present level I evidence by comparing functional outcomes, peri-operative parameters and complications of direct anterior approach (DAA) versus posterior approach (PA) or lateral approach (LA) in THA.
METHODS: A comprehensive multi-database search (PubMed, OVID Medline, EMBASE) was conducted from date of database inception to 1st December 2020. Data from randomised controlled trials comparing outcomes of DAA versus PA or LA in THA were extracted and analysed.
RESULTS: Twenty-four studies comprising 2010 patients were included in this meta-analysis. DAA has a longer operative time (MD = 17.38 min, 95%CI: 12.28, 22.47 min, P < 0.001) but a shorter length of stay compared to PA (MD = - 0.33 days, 95%CI: - 0.55, - 0.11 days, P = 0.003). There was no difference in operative time or length of stay when comparing DAA versus LA. DAA also had significantly better HHS than PA at 6 weeks (MD = 8.00, 95%CI: 5.85, 10.15, P < 0.001) and LA at 12 weeks (MD = 2.23, 95%CI: 0.31, 4.15, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in risk of neurapraxia for DAA versus LA or in risk of dislocations, periprosthetic fractures or VTE between DAA and PA or DAA and LA.
CONCLUSIONS: The DAA has better early functional outcomes with shorter mean length of stay but was associated with a longer operative time than PA. There was no difference in risk of dislocations, neurapraxias, periprosthetic fractures or VTE between approaches. Based on our results, choice of THA approach should ultimately be guided by surgeon experience, surgeon preference and patient factors.
METHODS: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

These surgical procedures have their own challenges, limitations, and success rate. The choice of surgical approach will depend on many factors including the surgeon\'s choice, type of pathology, bone stock, age of the patient, and experience of the surgeon. Whichever approach is used for total hip arthroplasty (THA), the primary goals of the surgery would be pain relief and enhancement in the quality of the patient\'s life suffering from hip pathologies. To further understand the advantages and potential pitfalls associated with different surgical approaches, we conducted a review study comparing different surgical approaches for THA in terms of their clinical and functional outcomes. All the studies done on surgical approaches used in THA published articles in the English language and from 2015 onward were included in the review. The databases searched were COCHRANE, MEDLINE, PEDRO, CINHAL, etc. Search engines that were searched were Google Scholar, Pub Med, and Science Direct. As per the inclusion criteria, out of 50 studies, 26 studies were included in the study which underwent critical analysis. Considering all the factors reviewed from the literature, the posterior approach or posterolateral approach is optimally beneficial.