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 *

342 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25586759)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: 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;
    BMJ; 2013 Nov; 347():f6415. PubMed ID: 24231273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Interspinous process device versus conventional decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: 5-year results of a randomized controlled trial.
    Schenck CD; Terpstra SES; Moojen WA; van Zwet E; Peul W; Arts MP; Vleggeert-Lankamp CLA
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2022 Jun; 36(6):909-917. PubMed ID: 34952518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The Felix-trial. Double-blind randomization of interspinous implant or bony decompression for treatment of spinal stenosis related intermittent neurogenic claudication.
    Moojen WA; Arts MP; Brand R; Koes BW; Peul WC
    BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2010 May; 11():100. PubMed ID: 20507568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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; 2015(3):CD010036. PubMed ID: 25760812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. MILD® Is an Effective Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Neurogenic Claudication: MiDAS ENCORE Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Benyamin RM; Staats PS; MiDAS Encore I
    Pain Physician; 2016 May; 19(4):229-42. PubMed ID: 27228511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Prospective, randomized, multicenter study with 2-year follow-up to compare the performance of decompression with and without interlaminar stabilization.
    Schmidt S; Franke J; Rauschmann M; Adelt D; Bonsanto MM; Sola S
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2018 Apr; 28(4):406-415. PubMed ID: 29372860
    [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-protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing clinical and radiological results after three different posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: the Spinal Stenosis Trial (SST) (part of the NORDSTEN Study).
    Hermansen E; Austevoll IM; Romild UK; Rekeland F; Solberg T; Storheim K; Grundnes O; Aaen J; Brox JI; Hellum C; Indrekvam K
    BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2017 Mar; 18(1):121. PubMed ID: 28327114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Percutaneous Interspinous Spacer vs Decompression in Patients with Neurogenic Claudication: An Alternative in Selected Patients?
    Meyer B; Baranto A; Schils F; Collignon F; Zoega B; Tan L; LeHuec JC;
    Neurosurgery; 2018 May; 82(5):621-629. PubMed ID: 28973638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Minimally invasive decompression versus x-stop in lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled multicenter study.
    Lønne G; Johnsen LG; Rossvoll I; Andresen H; Storheim K; Zwart JA; Nygaard ØP
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2015 Jan; 40(2):77-85. PubMed ID: 25575084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.