These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
24. Posterolateral fusion with interbody for lumbar spondylolisthesis is associated with less repeat surgery than posterolateral fusion alone. Macki M; Bydon M; Weingart R; Sciubba D; Wolinsky JP; Gokaslan ZL; Bydon A; Witham T Clin Neurol Neurosurg; 2015 Nov; 138():117-23. PubMed ID: 26318363 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. [Comparison of minimally invasive using a tubular retraction system versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases]. Luo Z; Rao H; Huang D; Li G; Liu C; Dong S; Tian J Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2015 Sep; 95(33):2681-5. PubMed ID: 26711822 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Spondylolisthesis: Comparison Between Isthmic and Degenerative Spondylolisthesis. Kim JY; Park JY; Kim KH; Kuh SU; Chin DK; Kim KS; Cho YE World Neurosurg; 2015 Nov; 84(5):1284-93. PubMed ID: 26072461 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Singh K; Nandyala SV; Marquez-Lara A; Fineberg SJ; Oglesby M; Pelton MA; Andersson GB; Isayeva D; Jegier BJ; Phillips FM Spine J; 2014 Aug; 14(8):1694-701. PubMed ID: 24252237 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparison between minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Saetia K; Phankhongsab A; Kuansongtham V; Paiboonsirijit S J Med Assoc Thai; 2013 Jan; 96(1):41-6. PubMed ID: 23720976 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Perioperative complications related to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion: evaluation of 204 operations on lumbar instability at single center. Wang J; Zhou Y Spine J; 2014 Sep; 14(9):2078-84. PubMed ID: 24361997 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study. Seng C; Siddiqui MA; Wong KP; Zhang K; Yeo W; Tan SB; Yue WM Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Nov; 38(23):2049-55. PubMed ID: 23963015 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. A Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Grade 1 Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: An Analysis of the Prospective Quality Outcomes Database. Chan AK; Bisson EF; Bydon M; Foley KT; Glassman SD; Shaffrey CI; Wang MY; Park P; Potts EA; Shaffrey ME; Coric D; Knightly JJ; Fu KM; Slotkin JR; Asher AL; Virk MS; Kerezoudis P; Alvi MA; Guan J; Haid RW; Mummaneni PV Neurosurgery; 2020 Sep; 87(3):555-562. PubMed ID: 32409828 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years. Parker SL; Adogwa O; Bydon A; Cheng J; McGirt MJ World Neurosurg; 2012 Jul; 78(1-2):178-84. PubMed ID: 22120269 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Patient-reported and radiographic outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis with or without reduction: A comparative study. Fan G; Zhang H; Guan X; Gu G; Wu X; Hu A; Gu X; He S J Clin Neurosci; 2016 Nov; 33():111-118. PubMed ID: 27443498 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Minimally Invasive Versus Traditional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Single-Level Spondylolisthesis Grades 1 and 2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Qin R; Liu B; Zhou P; Yao Y; Hao J; Yang K; Xu TL; Zhang F; Chen X World Neurosurg; 2019 Feb; 122():180-189. PubMed ID: 30414524 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Posterior migration of fusion cages in degenerative lumbar disease treated with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a report of three patients. Aoki Y; Yamagata M; Nakajima F; Ikeda Y; Takahashi K Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Jan; 34(1):E54-8. PubMed ID: 19127150 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with rhBMP-2 in spinal deformity, spondylolisthesis, and degenerative disease--part 2: BMP dosage-related complications and long-term outcomes in 509 patients. Crandall DG; Revella J; Patterson J; Huish E; Chang M; McLemore R Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Jun; 38(13):1137-45. PubMed ID: 23354111 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Comparison of adjacent segment disease after minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Yee TJ; Terman SW; La Marca F; Park P J Clin Neurosci; 2014 Oct; 21(10):1796-801. PubMed ID: 24880486 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Shunwu F; Xing Z; Fengdong Z; Xiangqian F Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2010 Aug; 35(17):1615-20. PubMed ID: 20479702 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Clinical and radiographic outcomes using local bone shavings as autograft in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Kasliwal MK; Deutsch H World Neurosurg; 2012 Jul; 78(1-2):185-90. PubMed ID: 22120378 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]