144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23473407)
1. Biomechanical evaluation of destabilization following minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis.
Hasegawa K; Kitahara K; Shimoda H; Hara T
J Neurosurg Spine; 2013 May; 18(5):504-10. PubMed ID: 23473407
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Biomechanical assessment of minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a cadaver study.
Hamasaki T; Tanaka N; Kim J; Okada M; Ochi M; Hutton WC
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2009 Oct; 22(7):486-91. PubMed ID: 20075811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Biomechanical analysis in a human cadaveric model of spinous process fixation with an interlaminar allograft spacer for lumbar spinal stenosis: Laboratory investigation.
Pradhan BB; Turner AW; Zatushevsky MA; Cornwall GB; Rajaee SS; Bae HW
J Neurosurg Spine; 2012 Jun; 16(6):585-93. PubMed ID: 22519928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A prospective comparative study of 2 minimally invasive decompression procedures for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) versus muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression (MILD).
Arai Y; Hirai T; Yoshii T; Sakai K; Kato T; Enomoto M; Matsumoto R; Yamada T; Kawabata S; Shinomiya K; Okawa A
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2014 Feb; 39(4):332-40. PubMed ID: 24299721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis in younger age patients could lead to higher stresses in the remaining neural arch -- a finite element investigation.
Ivanov A; Faizan A; Sairyo K; Ebraheim N; Biyani A; Goel VK
Minim Invasive Neurosurg; 2007 Feb; 50(1):18-22. PubMed ID: 17546538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Biomechanical effect of graded minimal-invasive decompression procedures on lumbar spinal stability.
Hartmann F; Janssen C; Böhm S; Hely H; Rommens PM; Gercek E
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg; 2012 Sep; 132(9):1233-9. PubMed ID: 22592915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Microendoscopic lateral decompression for lumbar foraminal stenosis: a biomechanical study.
Enyo Y; Yamada H; Kim JH; Yoshida M; Hutton WC
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2014 Jul; 27(5):257-62. PubMed ID: 23563327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Biomechanical analysis of an interspinous fusion device as a stand-alone and as supplemental fixation to posterior expandable interbody cages in the lumbar spine.
Gonzalez-Blohm SA; Doulgeris JJ; Aghayev K; Lee WE; Volkov A; Vrionis FD
J Neurosurg Spine; 2014 Feb; 20(2):209-19. PubMed ID: 24286528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Short-term results of microendoscopic posterior decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Technical note.
Ikuta K; Arima J; Tanaka T; Oga M; Nakano S; Sasaki K; Goshi K; Yo M; Fukagawa S
J Neurosurg Spine; 2005 May; 2(5):624-33. PubMed ID: 15945442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A minimally invasive technique for decompression of the lumbar spine.
Guiot BH; Khoo LT; Fessler RG
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2002 Feb; 27(4):432-8. PubMed ID: 11840112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Bilateral interlaminar fenestration and unroofing for the decompression of nerve roots by using a unilateral approach in lumbar canal stenosis.
Iwatsuki K; Yoshimine T; Aoki M
Surg Neurol; 2007 Nov; 68(5):487-92; discussion 492. PubMed ID: 17825382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression for the lumbar spine: a minimally invasive new procedure for lumbar spinal canal stenosis.
Hatta Y; Shiraishi T; Sakamoto A; Yato Y; Harada T; Mikami Y; Hase H; Kubo T
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Apr; 34(8):E276-80. PubMed ID: 19365236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Compressive preload reduces segmental flexion instability after progressive destabilization of the lumbar spine.
Fry RW; Alamin TF; Voronov LI; Fielding LC; Ghanayem AJ; Parikh A; Carandang G; Mcintosh BW; Havey RM; Patwardhan AG
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2014 Jan; 39(2):E74-81. PubMed ID: 24153162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Interlaminar stabilization offers greater biomechanical advantage compared to interspinous stabilization after lumbar decompression: a finite element analysis.
Lu T; Lu Y
J Orthop Surg Res; 2020 Jul; 15(1):291. PubMed ID: 32727615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using posterolateral placement of a single cylindrical threaded cage.
Zhao J; Hai Y; Ordway NR; Park CK; Yuan HA
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2000 Feb; 25(4):425-30. PubMed ID: 10707386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Short-term Results of Microendoscopic Muscle-preserving Interlaminar Decompression versus Spinal Process Splitting Laminectomy.
Fukushi R; Yoshimoto M; Iesato N; Terashima Y; Takebayashi T; Yamashita T
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg; 2018 Nov; 79(6):511-517. PubMed ID: 29294509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of the Total Facet Arthroplasty System after complete laminectomy-facetectomy on the biomechanics of implanted and adjacent segments.
Phillips FM; Tzermiadianos MN; Voronov LI; Havey RM; Carandang G; Renner SM; Rosler DM; Ochoa JA; Patwardhan AG
Spine J; 2009; 9(1):96-102. PubMed ID: 18440280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [The biomechanical change of lumbar unilateral graded facetectomy and strategies of its microsurgical reconstruction: report of 23 cases].
Zhou Y; Luo G; Chu TW; Wang J; Li CQ; Zheng WJ; Zhang ZF; Hao Y
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2007 May; 87(19):1334-8. PubMed ID: 17727779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Biomechanical effects of a unilateral approach to minimally invasive lumbar decompression.
Smith ZA; Vastardis GA; Carandang G; Havey RM; Hannon S; Dahdaleh N; Voronov LI; Fessler RG; Patwardhan AG
PLoS One; 2014; 9(3):e92611. PubMed ID: 24658010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar decompression: a biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies.
Ho YH; Tu YK; Hsiao CK; Chang CH
BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2015 Aug; 16():208. PubMed ID: 26285817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
