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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

868 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21685806)

  • 1. Acute hospital costs after minimally invasive versus open lumbar interbody fusion: data from a US national database with 6106 patients.
    Wang MY; Lerner J; Lesko J; McGirt MJ
    J Spinal Disord Tech; 2012 Aug; 25(6):324-8. PubMed ID: 21685806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion.
    Wang MY; Cummock MD; Yu Y; Trivedi RA
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2010 Jun; 12(6):694-9. PubMed ID: 20515357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of open and minimally invasive techniques for posterior lumbar instrumentation and fusion after open anterior lumbar interbody fusion.
    Kepler CK; Yu AL; Gruskay JA; Delasotta LA; Radcliff KE; Rihn JA; Hilibrand AS; Anderson DG; Vaccaro AR
    Spine J; 2013 May; 13(5):489-97. PubMed ID: 23218509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Intraoperative and early postoperative complications in extreme lateral interbody fusion: an analysis of 600 cases.
    Rodgers WB; Gerber EJ; Patterson J
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2011 Jan; 36(1):26-32. PubMed ID: 21192221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life.
    Adogwa O; Parker SL; Bydon A; Cheng J; McGirt MJ
    J Spinal Disord Tech; 2011 Dec; 24(8):479-84. PubMed ID: 21336176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Geographic and demographic variability of cost and surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis.
    Daffner SD; Beimesch CF; Wang JC
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2010 May; 35(11):1165-9. PubMed ID: 20421853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial.
    Wang HL; Lü FZ; Jiang JY; Ma X; Xia XL; Wang LX
    Chin Med J (Engl); 2011 Dec; 124(23):3868-74. PubMed ID: 22340311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis.
    Parker SL; Adogwa O; Witham TF; Aaronson OS; Cheng J; McGirt MJ
    Minim Invasive Neurosurg; 2011 Feb; 54(1):33-7. PubMed ID: 21506066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Comparison of short-term effectiveness between minimally invasive surgery- and open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar degenerative disease].
    Yang J; Kong Q; Song Y; Liu H; Zeng J
    Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2013 Mar; 27(3):262-7. PubMed ID: 23672121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Anterior and posterior lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws: comparison to muscle damage and minimally invasive techniques.
    Dickerman RD; East JW; Winters K; Tackett J; Hajovsky-Pietla A
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Dec; 34(25):E923-5. PubMed ID: 19940722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Cost-utility analysis of minimally invasive versus open multilevel hemilaminectomy for lumbar stenosis.
    Parker SL; Adogwa O; Davis BJ; Fulchiero E; Aaronson O; Cheng J; Devin CJ; McGirt MJ
    J Spinal Disord Tech; 2013 Feb; 26(1):42-7. PubMed ID: 21959840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Is the use of minimally invasive fusion technologies associated with improved outcomes after elective interbody lumbar fusion? Analysis of a nationwide prospective patient-reported outcomes registry.
    McGirt MJ; Parker SL; Mummaneni P; Knightly J; Pfortmiller D; Foley K; Asher AL
    Spine J; 2017 Jul; 17(7):922-932. PubMed ID: 28254672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis.
    Parker SL; Mendenhall SK; Shau DN; Zuckerman SL; Godil SS; Cheng JS; McGirt MJ
    World Neurosurg; 2014; 82(1-2):230-8. PubMed ID: 23321379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Perioperative complications of minimally invasive surgery (MIS): comparison of MIS and open interbody fusion techniques.
    Bagan B; Patel N; Deutsch H; Harrop J; Sharan A; Vaccaro AR; Ratliff JK
    Surg Technol Int; 2008; 17():281-6. PubMed ID: 18802914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 44.