231 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12734742)
1. Comparison of plain radiographs with CT scan to evaluate interbody fusion following the use of titanium interbody cages and transpedicular instrumentation.
Shah RR; Mohammed S; Saifuddin A; Taylor BA
Eur Spine J; 2003 Aug; 12(4):378-85. PubMed ID: 12734742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein type 2 with cylindrical interbody cages.
Haid RW; Branch CL; Alexander JT; Burkus JK
Spine J; 2004; 4(5):527-38; discussion 538-9. PubMed ID: 15363423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Bilateral implantation of low-profile interbody fusion cages: subsidence, lordosis, and fusion analysis.
Schiffman M; Brau SA; Henderson R; Gimmestad G
Spine J; 2003; 3(5):377-87. PubMed ID: 14588950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions.
Ray CD
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1997 Mar; 22(6):667-79; discussion 679-80. PubMed ID: 9089940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Radiologic assessment of interbody fusion using carbon fiber cages.
Santos ER; Goss DG; Morcom RK; Fraser RD
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 May; 28(10):997-1001. PubMed ID: 12768137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of fusion rates following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using polyetheretherketone cages or titanium cages with transpedicular instrumentation.
Nemoto O; Asazuma T; Yato Y; Imabayashi H; Yasuoka H; Fujikawa A
Eur Spine J; 2014 Oct; 23(10):2150-5. PubMed ID: 25015180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. PEEK versus titanium cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis of subsidence.
Campbell PG; Cavanaugh DA; Nunley P; Utter PA; Kerr E; Wadhwa R; Stone M
Neurosurg Focus; 2020 Sep; 49(3):E10. PubMed ID: 32871573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of instrumented anterior interbody fusion with instrumented circumferential lumbar fusion.
Madan SS; Boeree NR
Eur Spine J; 2003 Dec; 12(6):567-75. PubMed ID: 14673717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Fusion assessment of posterior lumbar interbody fusion using radiolucent cages: X-ray films and helical computed tomography scans compared with surgical exploration of fusion.
Fogel GR; Toohey JS; Neidre A; Brantigan JW
Spine J; 2008; 8(4):570-7. PubMed ID: 17544854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Fusion rates and subsidence of morselized local bone grafted in titanium cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion using quantitative three-dimensional computed tomography scans.
Lee JH; Jeon DW; Lee SJ; Chang BS; Lee CK
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2010 Jul; 35(15):1460-5. PubMed ID: 20431435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Lumbar spinal fusion. Outcome in relation to surgical methods, choice of implant and postoperative rehabilitation.
Christensen FB
Acta Orthop Scand Suppl; 2004 Oct; 75(313):2-43. PubMed ID: 15559781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Subsidence after anterior lumbar interbody fusion using paired stand-alone rectangular cages.
Choi JY; Sung KH
Eur Spine J; 2006 Jan; 15(1):16-22. PubMed ID: 15843972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2.
Burkus JK; Transfeldt EE; Kitchel SH; Watkins RG; Balderston RA
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2002 Nov; 27(21):2396-408. PubMed ID: 12438990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of sagittal contour and posterior disc height following interbody fusion: threaded cylindrical cages versus structural allograft versus vertical cages.
Groth AT; Kuklo TR; Klemme WR; Polly DW; Schroeder TM
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2005 Aug; 18(4):332-6. PubMed ID: 16021014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Radiographic assessment of interbody fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein type 2.
Burkus JK; Dorchak JD; Sanders DL
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Feb; 28(4):372-7. PubMed ID: 12590213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Revision strategies for salvaging or improving failed cylindrical cages.
McAfee PC; Cunningham BW; Lee GA; Orbegoso CM; Haggerty CJ; Fedder IL; Griffith SL
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1999 Oct; 24(20):2147-53. PubMed ID: 10543014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with stand-alone Trabecular Metal cages for repeatedly recurrent lumbar disc herniation and back pain.
Lequin MB; Verbaan D; Bouma GJ
J Neurosurg Spine; 2014 Jun; 20(6):617-22. PubMed ID: 24678638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion using a single cage with unilateral pedicle screws: a retrospective clinical study.
Bingqian C; Feng X; Xiaowen S; Feng Z; Xiaowen F; Yufeng Q; Qirong D
J Orthop Surg Res; 2015 Jun; 10():98. PubMed ID: 26122941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Influence of cage geometry on sagittal alignment in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion.
Gödde S; Fritsch E; Dienst M; Kohn D
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Aug; 28(15):1693-9. PubMed ID: 12897494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
