210 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10065526)
21. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: one surgeon's learning curve.
Nandyala SV; Fineberg SJ; Pelton M; Singh K
Spine J; 2014 Aug; 14(8):1460-5. PubMed ID: 24290313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Access strategies for revision or explantation of the Charité lumbar artificial disc replacement.
Wagner WH; Regan JJ; Leary SP; Lanman TH; Johnson JP; Rao RK; Cossman DV
J Vasc Surg; 2006 Dec; 44(6):1266-72. PubMed ID: 17145428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up.
Guyer RD; McAfee PC; Banco RJ; Bitan FD; Cappuccino A; Geisler FH; Hochschuler SH; Holt RT; Jenis LG; Majd ME; Regan JJ; Tromanhauser SG; Wong DC; Blumenthal SL
Spine J; 2009 May; 9(5):374-86. PubMed ID: 18805066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Laparoscopic lumbar interbody spinal fusion.
Heniford BT; Matthews BD; Lieberman IH
Surg Clin North Am; 2000 Oct; 80(5):1487-500. PubMed ID: 11059715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. A prospective study of laparoscopic spinal fusion. Technique and operative complications.
Mahvi DM; Zdeblick TA
Ann Surg; 1996 Jul; 224(1):85-90. PubMed ID: 8678623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial.
Brantigan JW; Steffee AD; Lewis ML; Quinn LM; Persenaire JM
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2000 Jun; 25(11):1437-46. PubMed ID: 10828927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. A prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial of anterior lumbar interbody fusion using a titanium cylindrical threaded fusion device.
Sasso RC; Kitchel SH; Dawson EG
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2004 Jan; 29(2):113-22; discussion 121-2. PubMed ID: 14722400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparison of the mini-open versus laparoscopic approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective review.
Kaiser MG; Haid RW; Subach BR; Miller JS; Smith CD; Rodts GE
Neurosurgery; 2002 Jul; 51(1):97-103; discussion 103-5. PubMed ID: 12182440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of an anterior cervical fusion cage.
Hacker RJ; Cauthen JC; Gilbert TJ; Griffith SL
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2000 Oct; 25(20):2646-54; discussion 2655. PubMed ID: 11034651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Is laparoscopic approach to lumbar spine fusion worthwhile?
Katkhouda N; Campos GM; Mavor E; Mason RJ; Hume M; Ting A
Am J Surg; 1999 Dec; 178(6):458-61. PubMed ID: 10670852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Minimally invasive interbody fusion for revision lumbar surgery: technical feasibility and safety.
Selznick LA; Shamji MF; Isaacs RE
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2009 May; 22(3):207-13. PubMed ID: 19412024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Lumbar disc arthroplasty with Maverick disc versus stand-alone interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption trial.
Gornet MF; Burkus JK; Dryer RF; Peloza JH
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2011 Dec; 36(25):E1600-11. PubMed ID: 21415812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Low fusion rate after L5-S1 laparoscopic anterior lumbar interbody fusion using twin stand-alone carbon fiber cages.
Pellisé F; Puig O; Rivas A; Bagó J; Villanueva C
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2002 Aug; 27(15):1665-9. PubMed ID: 12163730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Long-term durability of minimal invasive posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiographic follow-up.
Rouben D; Casnellie M; Ferguson M
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2011 Jul; 24(5):288-96. PubMed ID: 20975594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [Mid-term results of 360-degree lumbar spondylodesis with the use of a tantalum implant for disc replacement].
Matejka J; Zeman J; Belatka J
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech; 2009 Oct; 76(5):388-93. PubMed ID: 19912702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Video-assisted versus open anterior lumbar spine fusion surgery: a comparison of four techniques and complications in 135 patients.
Escobar E; Transfeldt E; Garvey T; Ogilvie J; Graber J; Schultz L
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Apr; 28(7):729-32. PubMed ID: 12671364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Laparoscopic discectomy with anterior interbody fusion of L5-S1.
Olsen D; McCord D; Law M
Surg Endosc; 1996 Dec; 10(12):1158-63. PubMed ID: 8939834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Correction of severe spinopelvic mismatch: decreased blood loss with lateral hyperlordotic interbody grafts as compared with pedicle subtraction osteotomy.
Leveque JC; Yanamadala V; Buchlak QD; Sethi RK
Neurosurg Focus; 2017 Aug; 43(2):E15. PubMed ID: 28760028
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable versus static interbody devices: radiographic assessment of sagittal segmental and pelvic parameters.
Hawasli AH; Khalifeh JM; Chatrath A; Yarbrough CK; Ray WZ
Neurosurg Focus; 2017 Aug; 43(2):E10. PubMed ID: 28760032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Minimally invasive versus open fusion for Grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database.
Mummaneni PV; Bisson EF; Kerezoudis P; Glassman S; Foley K; Slotkin JR; Potts E; Shaffrey M; Shaffrey CI; Coric D; Knightly J; Park P; Fu KM; Devin CJ; Chotai S; Chan AK; Virk M; Asher AL; Bydon M
Neurosurg Focus; 2017 Aug; 43(2):E11. PubMed ID: 28760035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
