337 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25588711)
1. [The PLIF and TLIF techniques. Indication, technique, advantages, and disadvantages].
Fleege C; Rickert M; Rauschmann M
Orthopade; 2015 Feb; 44(2):114-23. PubMed ID: 25588711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review.
Goldstein CL; Macwan K; Sundararajan K; Rampersaud YR
J Neurosurg Spine; 2016 Mar; 24(3):416-27. PubMed ID: 26565767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Li W; Wei H; Zhang R
BMC Surg; 2023 Nov; 23(1):345. PubMed ID: 37968633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes.
Karikari IO; Isaacs RE
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2010 Dec; 35(26 Suppl):S294-301. PubMed ID: 21160393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Restoration of lumbar lordosis after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review.
Carlson BB; Saville P; Dowdell J; Goto R; Vaishnav A; Gang CH; McAnany S; Albert TJ; Qureshi S
Spine J; 2019 May; 19(5):951-958. PubMed ID: 30529420
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
de Kunder SL; van Kuijk SMJ; Rijkers K; Caelers IJMH; van Hemert WLW; de Bie RA; van Santbrink H
Spine J; 2017 Nov; 17(11):1712-1721. PubMed ID: 28647584
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Trans-foraminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of surgical morbidity.
Mehta VA; McGirt MJ; Garcés Ambrossi GL; Parker SL; Sciubba DM; Bydon A; Wolinsky JP; Gokaslan ZL; Witham TF
Neurol Res; 2011 Jan; 33(1):38-42. PubMed ID: 20546682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A comparative study of perioperative complications between transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
Liu J; Deng H; Long X; Chen X; Xu R; Liu Z
Eur Spine J; 2016 May; 25(5):1575-1580. PubMed ID: 26126415
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparing miniopen and minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion in single-level lumbar degeneration.
Lo WL; Lin CM; Yeh YS; Su YK; Tseng YY; Yang ST; Lin JW
Biomed Res Int; 2015; 2015():168384. PubMed ID: 25629037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of Outcomes of Anterior, Posterior, and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery at a Single Lumbar Level with Degenerative Spinal Disease.
Lee N; Kim KN; Yi S; Ha Y; Shin DA; Yoon DH; Kim KS
World Neurosurg; 2017 May; 101():216-226. PubMed ID: 28189865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison Between Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Lan T; Hu SY; Zhang YT; Zheng YC; Zhang R; Shen Z; Yang XJ
World Neurosurg; 2018 Apr; 112():86-93. PubMed ID: 29367001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Expandable Technology: A Clinical and Radiographic Analysis of 50 Patients.
Kim CW; Doerr TM; Luna IY; Joshua G; Shen SR; Fu X; Wu AM
World Neurosurg; 2016 Jun; 90():228-235. PubMed ID: 26921700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion: Do the cons outweigh the pros?
Epstein NE
Surg Neurol Int; 2016; 7(Suppl 25):S692-S700. PubMed ID: 27843688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Exploratory meta-analysis on dose-related efficacy and morbidity of bone morphogenetic protein in spinal arthrodesis surgery.
Hofstetter CP; Hofer AS; Levi AD
J Neurosurg Spine; 2016 Mar; 24(3):457-75. PubMed ID: 26613283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Lordosis Recreation in Transforaminal and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Cadaveric Study of the Influence of Surgical Bone Resection and Cage Angle.
Robertson PA; Armstrong WA; Woods DL; Rawlinson JJ
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2018 Nov; 43(22):E1350-E1357. PubMed ID: 30383726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A meta-analysis comparing ALIF, PLIF, TLIF and LLIF.
Teng I; Han J; Phan K; Mobbs R
J Clin Neurosci; 2017 Oct; 44():11-17. PubMed ID: 28676316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The surgical technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
Lawton CD; Smith ZA; Barnawi A; Fessler RG
J Neurosurg Sci; 2011 Sep; 55(3):259-64. PubMed ID: 21968588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. In vitro comparison of endplate preparation between four mini-open interbody fusion approaches.
Tatsumi R; Lee YP; Khajavi K; Taylor W; Chen F; Bae H
Eur Spine J; 2015 Apr; 24 Suppl 3():372-7. PubMed ID: 25874742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF.
Mobbs RJ; Phan K; Malham G; Seex K; Rao PJ
J Spine Surg; 2015 Dec; 1(1):2-18. PubMed ID: 27683674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Revision of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical study in nonosteoporotic bone.
Ploumis A; Wu C; Mehbod A; Fischer G; Faundez A; Wu W; Transfeldt E
J Neurosurg Spine; 2010 Jan; 12(1):82-7. PubMed ID: 20043769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
