501 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23797498)
1. Lumbar spinous process splitting decompression provides equivalent outcomes to conventional midline decompression in degenerative lumbar canal stenosis: a prospective, randomized controlled study of 51 patients.
Rajasekaran S; Thomas A; Kanna RM; Prasad Shetty A
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Sep; 38(20):1737-43. PubMed ID: 23797498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Modified Marmot operation versus spinous process transverse cutting laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis.
Kawakami M; Nakao S; Fukui D; Kadosaka Y; Matsuoka T; Yamada H
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Nov; 38(23):E1461-8. PubMed ID: 23778375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Reduced postoperative wound pain after lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis: a randomized controlled study.
Watanabe K; Matsumoto M; Ikegami T; Nishiwaki Y; Tsuji T; Ishii K; Ogawa Y; Takaishi H; Nakamura M; Toyama Y; Chiba K
J Neurosurg Spine; 2011 Jan; 14(1):51-8. PubMed ID: 21142464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Modified unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: technical note.
Liu X; Yuan S; Tian Y
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 May; 38(12):E732-7. PubMed ID: 23466507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. X-stop versus decompressive surgery for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up.
Strömqvist BH; Berg S; Gerdhem P; Johnsson R; Möller A; Sahlstrand T; Soliman A; Tullberg T
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Aug; 38(17):1436-42. PubMed ID: 23403549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Microendoscopy-assisted muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: clinical results of consecutive 105 cases with more than 3-year follow-up.
Yoshimoto M; Miyakawa T; Takebayashi T; Ida K; Tanimoto K; Kawamura S; Yamashita T
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2014 Mar; 39(5):E318-25. PubMed ID: 24365896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Epidural fentanyl for postoperative analgesia after lumbar canal decompression: a randomized controlled trial.
Guilfoyle MR; Mannion RJ; Mitchell P; Thomson S
Spine J; 2012 Aug; 12(8):646-51. PubMed ID: 22926408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Spinous process splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis: a critical appraisal.
Lee DY; Lee SH
Minim Invasive Neurosurg; 2008 Aug; 51(4):204-7. PubMed ID: 18683110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis.
Overdevest GM; Jacobs W; Vleggeert-Lankamp C; Thomé C; Gunzburg R; Peul W
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2015 Mar; (3):CD010036. PubMed ID: 25760812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Prospective analysis of clinical evaluation and self-assessment by patients after decompression surgery for degenerative lumbar canal stenosis.
Haro H; Maekawa S; Hamada Y
Spine J; 2008; 8(2):380-4. PubMed ID: 17433781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of the effect of 3 different approaches to the lumbar spinal canal on postoperative paraspinal muscle damage.
Kim K; Isu T; Sugawara A; Matsumoto R; Isobe M
Surg Neurol; 2008 Feb; 69(2):109-13; discussion 113. PubMed ID: 18261638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Split-spinous process laminotomy and discectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a preliminary report.
Cho DY; Lin HL; Lee WY; Lee HC
J Neurosurg Spine; 2007 Mar; 6(3):229-39. PubMed ID: 17355022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Postoperative outcome after modified unilateral-approach microendoscopic midline decompression for degenerative spinal stenosis.
Yagi M; Okada E; Ninomiya K; Kihara M
J Neurosurg Spine; 2009 Apr; 10(4):293-9. PubMed ID: 19441985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Aperius interspinous implant versus open surgical decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis.
Postacchini R; Ferrari E; Cinotti G; Menchetti PP; Postacchini F
Spine J; 2011 Oct; 11(10):933-9. PubMed ID: 22005077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Study of percutaneous lumbar decompression and treatment algorithm for patients suffering from neurogenic claudication.
Deer TR; Kim CK; Bowman RG; Ranson MT; Yee BS
Pain Physician; 2012; 15(6):451-60. PubMed ID: 23159960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the "classic" open approach.
Rahman M; Summers LE; Richter B; Mimran RI; Jacob RP
Minim Invasive Neurosurg; 2008 Apr; 51(2):100-5. PubMed ID: 18401823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a minimal invasive surgery.
Usman M; Ali M; Khanzada K; Ishaq M; Naeem-ul-Haq ; Aman R; Ali M
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2013 Dec; 23(12):852-6. PubMed ID: 24304987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. One-staged combined cervical and lumbar decompression for patients with tandem spinal stenosis on cervical and lumbar spine: analyses of clinical outcomes with minimum 3 years follow-up.
Kikuike K; Miyamoto K; Hosoe H; Shimizu K
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2009 Dec; 22(8):593-601. PubMed ID: 19956034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
