ABSTRACT
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the surgical, radiological, and functional outcomes of posterior-only versus combined anterior-posterior approaches in patients with traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures. The ideal approach (anterior-only, posterior-only, or combined anterior-posterior) for the surgical management of thoracolumbar burst fracture remains controversial, with each approach having its advantages and disadvantages. A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed (registration no., CRD42018115120). The authors reviewed comparative studies evaluating posterior-only approach compared with combined anterior-posterior approaches with respect to clinical, surgical, radiographic, and functional outcome measures. Five retrospective cohort studies were included. Postoperative neurological deterioration was not reported in either group. Operative time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative length of stay were increased among patients in the combined anterior-posterior group in one study and equivalent between groups in another study. No significant difference was observed between the two approaches with regards to long-term postoperative Cobb angle (mean difference, −0.2; 95% confidence interval, −5.2 to 4.8; p =0.936). Moreover, no significant difference in functional patient outcomes was observed in the 36item Short-Form Health Survey, Visual Analog Scale, and return-to-work rates between the two groups. The available evidence does not indicate improved clinical, radiologic (including kyphotic deformity), and functional outcomes in the combined anterior-posterior and posterior-only approaches in the management of traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures. Further studies are required to ascertain if a subset of patients will benefit from a combined anterior-posterior approach.
ABSTRACT
<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Most international clinical practice guidelines for prostate cancer (PCa) are driven by data derived in a Western setting. However, tumour biology and clinical disease progression are likely to differ in the Asian population. We compare the performance of the revised American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) prognostic groups with the commonly used D'Amico Risk Classification and conventional predictors for PCa, in a large cohort of Asian patients.</p><p><b>MATERIALS AND METHODS</b>We retrospectively reviewed data for 404 consecutive Singaporean patients receiving definitive radiotherapy at our centre between December 1996 and October 2006. The primary outcome was biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS), defined using the Phoenix definition. The secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Prognostic risk groups were defined using AJCC 7th edition (AJCC7) and 6th edition (AJCC6). Univariate analysis (UVA) and multivariate analysis (MVA) were performed for the following putative risk factors: age, Gleason score, prognostic grouping, tumour classification, radiation delivery technique, radiotherapy dose, hormonal therapy and initial PSA value.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>For the cohort, median age was 69 years. Median follow-up was 66.3 months. Five-year BRFS rate was 84.3% with 71 biochemical relapses and 5-year OS rate was 89.1% with 54 deaths. The concordance-indices for BRFS prediction were 0.588, 0.550 and 0.567 for AJCC7, AJCC6 and D'Amico respectively. Initial PSA, T-stage and AJCC7 were prognostic for BRFS on UVA. Comparison of AJCC7 vs. D'Amico showed no statistical additional value of either classification system although D'Amico was superior when compared to AJCC6 in predicting BRFS. T-stage ≥3 and D'Amico were significant prognostic factors for BRFS on MVA.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>In our local, predominantly Chinese population, neither AJCC6 nor AJCC7 demonstrated a high predictive accuracy for BRFS although AJCC7 has a slightly better predictive ability than AJCC6.</p>