173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24348055)
1. Comparison of the costs of nonoperative care to minimally invasive surgery for sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis in a United States Medicare population: potential economic implications of a new minimally-invasive technology.
Ackerman SJ; Polly DW; Knight T; Schneider K; Holt T; Cummings J
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res; 2013; 5():575-87. PubMed ID: 24348055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Nonoperative care to manage sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis: high costs and medical resource utilization in the United States Medicare population.
Ackerman SJ; Polly DW; Knight T; Holt T; Cummings J
J Neurosurg Spine; 2014 Apr; 20(4):354-63. PubMed ID: 24527824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of the costs of nonoperative care to minimally invasive surgery for sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis in a United States commercial payer population: potential economic implications of a new minimally invasive technology.
Ackerman SJ; Polly DW; Knight T; Schneider K; Holt T; Cummings J
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res; 2014; 6():283-96. PubMed ID: 24904218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Management of sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis with nonoperative care is medical resource-intensive and costly in a United States commercial payer population.
Ackerman SJ; Polly DW; Knight T; Holt T; Cummings J
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res; 2014; 6():63-74. PubMed ID: 24596468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Analysis of postmarket complaints database for the iFuse SI Joint Fusion System®: a minimally invasive treatment for degenerative sacroiliitis and sacroiliac joint disruption.
Miller LE; Reckling WC; Block JE
Med Devices (Auckl); 2013; 6():77-84. PubMed ID: 23761982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion.
Ledonio CG; Polly DW; Swiontkowski MF; Cummings JT
Med Devices (Auckl); 2014; 7():187-93. PubMed ID: 24940087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Contemporary Trends in Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Utilization in the Medicare Population by Specialty.
Hersh AM; Jimenez AE; Pellot KI; Gong JH; Jiang K; Khalifeh JM; Ahmed AK; Raad M; Veeravagu A; Ratliff JK; Jain A; Lubelski D; Bydon A; Witham TF; Theodore N; Azad TD
Neurosurgery; 2023 Dec; 93(6):1244-1250. PubMed ID: 37306413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Refining risk adjustment for bundled payment models in cervical fusions-an analysis of Medicare beneficiaries.
Malik AT; Phillips FM; Retchin S; Xu W; Yu E; Kim J; Khan SN
Spine J; 2019 Oct; 19(10):1706-1713. PubMed ID: 31226386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Using Triangular Titanium Implants vs. Non-Surgical Management: Six-Month Outcomes from a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.
Whang P; Cher D; Polly D; Frank C; Lockstadt H; Glaser J; Limoni R; Sembrano J
Int J Spine Surg; 2015; 9():6. PubMed ID: 25785242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Are current DRG-based bundled payment models for lumbar fusions risk-adjusting adequately? An analysis of Medicare beneficiaries.
Malik AT; Phillips FM; Yu E; Khan SN
Spine J; 2020 Jan; 20(1):32-40. PubMed ID: 31125696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Procedural volume, cost, and reimbursement of outpatient incisional hernia repair: implications for payers and providers.
Song C; Liu E; Tackett S; Shi L; Marcus D
J Med Econ; 2017 Jun; 20(6):623-632. PubMed ID: 28277031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Medicare Reimbursement Rates and Utilization Trends in Sacroiliac Joint Fusion.
Federico VP; Zavras AG; Butler A; Nolte MT; Munim MA; Lopez GD; DeWald C; An HS; Colman MW; Phillips FM
J Am Acad Orthop Surg; 2023 Sep; 31(17):923-930. PubMed ID: 37192412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A systematic review of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion utilizing a lateral transarticular technique.
Heiney J; Capobianco R; Cher D
Int J Spine Surg; 2015; 9():40. PubMed ID: 26273558
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Cost savings for pVAD compared to ECMO in the management of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: An episode-of-care analysis.
Vetrovec GW; Lim MJ; Needham KA
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2021 Oct; 98(4):703-710. PubMed ID: 32790231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Minimally invasive versus open surgery in the Medicare population: a comparison of post-operative and economic outcomes.
Fan CJ; Chien HL; Weiss MJ; He J; Wolfgang CL; Cameron JL; Pawlik TM; Makary MA
Surg Endosc; 2018 Sep; 32(9):3874-3880. PubMed ID: 29484556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Utilization of Minimally Invasive Surgical Approach for Sacroiliac Joint Fusion in Surgeon Population of ISASS and SMISS Membership.
Lorio MP; Polly DW; Ninkovic I; Ledonio CG; Hallas K; Andersson G
Open Orthop J; 2014; 8():1-6. PubMed ID: 24551025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes.
Smith AG; Capobianco R; Cher D; Rudolf L; Sachs D; Gundanna M; Kleiner J; Mody MG; Shamie AN
Ann Surg Innov Res; 2013 Oct; 7(1):14. PubMed ID: 24172188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
