222 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25025237)
1. Comparison of the efficacy and safety between interspinous process distraction device and open decompression surgery in treating lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta analysis.
Hong P; Liu Y; Li H
J Invest Surg; 2015 Feb; 28(1):40-9. PubMed ID: 25025237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Interspinous process devices(IPD) alone versus decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis(LSS): A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Zhao XW; Ma JX; Ma XL; Li F; He WW; Jiang X; Wang Y; Han B; Lu B
Int J Surg; 2017 Mar; 39():57-64. PubMed ID: 28110031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis.
Machado GC; Ferreira PH; Yoo RI; Harris IA; Pinheiro MB; Koes BW; van Tulder MW; Rzewuska M; Maher CG; Ferreira ML
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2016 Nov; 11(11):CD012421. PubMed ID: 27801521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Efficacy and safety of interspinous process device compared with alone decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Zhu C; Xiao G
Medicine (Baltimore); 2024 Jun; 103(23):e38370. PubMed ID: 38847722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Interspinous spacer decompression (X-STOP) for lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative disk disease: a multicenter study with a minimum 3-year follow-up.
Puzzilli F; Gazzeri R; Galarza M; Neroni M; Panagiotopoulos K; Bolognini A; Callovini G; Agrillo U; Alfieri A
Clin Neurol Neurosurg; 2014 Sep; 124():166-74. PubMed ID: 25064150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Does an interspinous device (Coflex) improve the outcome of decompressive surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis? One-year follow up of a prospective case control study of 60 patients.
Richter A; Schütz C; Hauck M; Halm H
Eur Spine J; 2010 Feb; 19(2):283-9. PubMed ID: 19967546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Interspinous process devices for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Li M; Yang H; Wang G
Neurosurg Rev; 2017 Oct; 40(4):529-536. PubMed ID: 27178046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. IPD without bony decompression versus conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: 2-year results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial.
Moojen WA; Arts MP; Jacobs WC; van Zwet EW; van den Akker-van Marle ME; Koes BW; Vleggeert-Lankamp CL; Peul WC;
Eur Spine J; 2015 Oct; 24(10):2295-305. PubMed ID: 25586759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Decompression and coflex interlaminar stabilisation compared with conventional surgical procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Li AM; Li X; Yang Z
Int J Surg; 2017 Apr; 40():60-67. PubMed ID: 28254421
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Five-year durability of stand-alone interspinous process decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.
Nunley PD; Patel VV; Orndorff DG; Lavelle WF; Block JE; Geisler FH
Clin Interv Aging; 2017; 12():1409-1417. PubMed ID: 28919727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Is the interspinous process device safe and effective in elderly patients with lumbar degeneration? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Han B; Chen Y; Liang W; Yang Y; Ding Z; Yin P; Hai Y
Eur Spine J; 2024 Mar; 33(3):881-891. PubMed ID: 38342843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Interspinous process devices versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: cost-utility analysis.
van den Akker-van Marle ME; Moojen WA; Arts MP; Vleggeert-Lankamp CL; Peul WC;
Spine J; 2016 Jun; 16(6):702-10. PubMed ID: 25452018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Decompression with fusion is not in superiority to decompression alone in lumbar stenosis based on randomized controlled trials: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis.
Xu S; Wang J; Liang Y; Zhu Z; Wang K; Qian Y; Liu H
Medicine (Baltimore); 2019 Nov; 98(46):e17849. PubMed ID: 31725625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Which is the most effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: Decompression, fusion, or interspinous process device? A Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Zhang Y; Lu D; Ji W; He F; Chen AC; Yang H; Zhu X
J Orthop Translat; 2021 Jan; 26():45-53. PubMed ID: 33437622
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [The importance of interspinous spacers in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis].
Vinas-Rios JM; Arabmotlagh M; Rahim T; Schmidt S; Sellei RM; Rauschmann M
Orthopade; 2019 Oct; 48(10):831-836. PubMed ID: 31297556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Interspinous distraction in lumbar spinal stenosis: a neurophysiological perspective.
Schizas C; Pralong E; Tzioupis C; Kulik G
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Nov; 38(24):2113-7. PubMed ID: 24026157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Efficacy and Safety of Full-endoscopic Decompression via Interlaminar Approach for Central or Lateral Recess Spinal Stenosis of the Lumbar Spine: A Meta-analysis.
Lee CH; Choi M; Ryu DS; Choi I; Kim CH; Kim HS; Sohn MJ
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2018 Dec; 43(24):1756-1764. PubMed ID: 29794584
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Failure rates and complications of interspinous process decompression devices: a European multicenter study.
Gazzeri R; Galarza M; Neroni M; Fiore C; Faiola A; Puzzilli F; Callovini G; Alfieri A
Neurosurg Focus; 2015 Oct; 39(4):E14. PubMed ID: 26424338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
