379 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18836357)
1. Lumbar spinal fusion versus anterior lumbar disc replacement: the financial implications.
Patel VV; Estes S; Lindley EM; Burger E
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2008 Oct; 21(7):473-6. PubMed ID: 18836357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparative charge analysis of one- and two-level lumbar total disc arthroplasty versus circumferential lumbar fusion.
Levin DA; Bendo JA; Quirno M; Errico T; Goldstein J; Spivak J
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Dec; 32(25):2905-9. PubMed ID: 18246016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. An economic model of one-level lumbar arthroplasty versus fusion.
Guyer RD; Tromanhauser SG; Regan JJ
Spine J; 2007; 7(5):558-62. PubMed ID: 17588819
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Prospective, randomized trial of metal-on-metal artificial lumbar disc replacement: initial results for treatment of discogenic pain.
Sasso RC; Foulk DM; Hahn M
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Jan; 33(2):123-31. PubMed ID: 18197095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. ProDisc artificial total lumbar disc replacement: introduction and early results from the United States clinical trial.
Delamarter RB; Fribourg DM; Kanim LE; Bae H
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Oct; 28(20):S167-75. PubMed ID: 14560188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of results of total disc replacement in postdiscectomy patients versus patients with no previous lumbar surgery.
Leahy M; Zigler JE; Ohnmeiss DD; Rashbaum RF; Sachs BL
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Jul; 33(15):1690-3; discussion 1694-5. PubMed ID: 18580740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Biomechanical comparison of a two-level Maverick disc replacement with a hybrid one-level disc replacement and one-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion.
Erkan S; Rivera Y; Wu C; Mehbod AA; Transfeldt EE
Spine J; 2009 Oct; 9(10):830-5. PubMed ID: 19477692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. SF-36 PCS benefit-cost ratio of lumbar fusion comparison to other surgical interventions: a thought experiment.
Polly DW; Glassman SD; Schwender JD; Shaffrey CI; Branch C; Burkus JK; Gornet MF;
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 May; 32(11 Suppl):S20-6. PubMed ID: 17495582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion as an adjunct to posterior instrumented correction of degenerative lumbar scoliosis: three year clinical and radiographic outcomes.
Crandall DG; Revella J
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Sep; 34(20):2126-33. PubMed ID: 19752698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cost analysis of anterior-posterior circumferential fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
Andres TM; Park JJ; Ricart Hoffiz PA; McHugh BJ; Warren DT; Errico TJ
Spine J; 2013 Jun; 13(6):651-6. PubMed ID: 23353002
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Recurrent lumbar disc herniation after single-level lumbar discectomy: incidence and health care cost analysis.
Ambrossi GL; McGirt MJ; Sciubba DM; Witham TF; Wolinsky JP; Gokaslan ZL; Long DM
Neurosurgery; 2009 Sep; 65(3):574-8; discussion 578. PubMed ID: 19687703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Microsurgical anterior approaches to the lumbar spine for interbody fusion and total disc replacement.
Mayer HM; Wiechert K
Neurosurgery; 2002 Nov; 51(5 Suppl):S159-65. PubMed ID: 12234444
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Costs and effects in lumbar spinal fusion. A follow-up study in 136 consecutive patients with chronic low back pain.
Soegaard R; Christensen FB; Christiansen T; Bünger C
Eur Spine J; 2007 May; 16(5):657-68. PubMed ID: 16871387
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease.
Murrey D; Janssen M; Delamarter R; Goldstein J; Zigler J; Tay B; Darden B
Spine J; 2009 Apr; 9(4):275-86. PubMed ID: 18774751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A comparison of perioperative costs and outcomes in patients with and without workers' compensation claims treated with minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
Pelton MA; Phillips FM; Singh K
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2012 Oct; 37(22):1914-9. PubMed ID: 22487713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Circumferential fusion is dominant over posterolateral fusion in a long-term perspective: cost-utility evaluation of a randomized controlled trial in severe, chronic low back pain.
Soegaard R; Bünger CE; Christiansen T; Høy K; Eiskjaer SP; Christensen FB
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Oct; 32(22):2405-14. PubMed ID: 18090078
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Relationship between the length of time off work preoperatively and clinical outcome at 24-month follow-up in patients undergoing total disc replacement or fusion.
Rohan MX; Ohnmeiss DD; Guyer RD; Zigler JE; Blumenthal SL; Hochschuler SH; Sachs BL; Rashbaum RF
Spine J; 2009 May; 9(5):360-5. PubMed ID: 18809357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. ProDisc-L total disc replacement: a comparison of 1-level versus 2-level arthroplasty patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up.
Hannibal M; Thomas DJ; Low J; Hsu KY; Zucherman J
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Oct; 32(21):2322-6. PubMed ID: 17906573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Prevalence of lumbar total disc replacement candidates in a community-based spinal surgery practice.
Fras CI; Auerbach JD
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2008 Apr; 21(2):126-9. PubMed ID: 18391718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Acquired spondylolysis after implantation of a lumbar ProDisc II prosthesis: case report and review of the literature.
Schulte TL; Lerner T; Hackenberg L; Liljenqvist U; Bullmann V
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Oct; 32(22):E645-8. PubMed ID: 18090074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
