322 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26409608)
1. A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Minimally Invasive versus Open Surgery Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Fusion in Italy and the United Kingdom.
Vertuani S; Nilsson J; Borgman B; Buseghin G; Leonard C; Assietti R; Quraishi NA
Value Health; 2015 Sep; 18(6):810-6. PubMed ID: 26409608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis.
Parker SL; Mendenhall SK; Shau DN; Zuckerman SL; Godil SS; Cheng JS; McGirt MJ
World Neurosurg; 2014; 82(1-2):230-8. PubMed ID: 23321379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
Singh K; Nandyala SV; Marquez-Lara A; Fineberg SJ; Oglesby M; Pelton MA; Andersson GB; Isayeva D; Jegier BJ; Phillips FM
Spine J; 2014 Aug; 14(8):1694-701. PubMed ID: 24252237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Comparative Effectiveness and Economic Evaluations of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Posterior or Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review.
Goldstein CL; Phillips FM; Rampersaud YR
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2016 Apr; 41 Suppl 8():S74-89. PubMed ID: 26825793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The cost effectiveness of minimally invasive spine surgery in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis: a comparison of transpsoas and open techniques.
Swamy G; Lopatina E; Thomas KC; Marshall DA; Johal HS
Spine J; 2019 Feb; 19(2):339-348. PubMed ID: 29859350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Cost-utility of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: systematic review and economic evaluation.
Phan K; Hogan JA; Mobbs RJ
Eur Spine J; 2015 Nov; 24(11):2503-13. PubMed ID: 26195079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Is the use of minimally invasive fusion technologies associated with improved outcomes after elective interbody lumbar fusion? Analysis of a nationwide prospective patient-reported outcomes registry.
McGirt MJ; Parker SL; Mummaneni P; Knightly J; Pfortmiller D; Foley K; Asher AL
Spine J; 2017 Jul; 17(7):922-932. PubMed ID: 28254672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A protocol of a randomized controlled multicenter trial for surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis: the Lumbar Interbody Fusion Trial (LIFT).
de Kunder SL; Rijkers K; van Kuijk SM; Evers SM; de Bie RA; van Santbrink H
BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2016 Oct; 17(1):417. PubMed ID: 27716168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 3: assessment of economic outcome.
Ghogawala Z; Whitmore RG; Watters WC; Sharan A; Mummaneni PV; Dailey AT; Choudhri TF; Eck JC; Groff MW; Wang JC; Resnick DK; Dhall SS; Kaiser MG
J Neurosurg Spine; 2014 Jul; 21(1):14-22. PubMed ID: 24980580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Minimally invasive versus open fusion for Grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database.
Mummaneni PV; Bisson EF; Kerezoudis P; Glassman S; Foley K; Slotkin JR; Potts E; Shaffrey M; Shaffrey CI; Coric D; Knightly J; Park P; Fu KM; Devin CJ; Chotai S; Chan AK; Virk M; Asher AL; Bydon M
Neurosurg Focus; 2017 Aug; 43(2):E11. PubMed ID: 28760035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion.
Wang MY; Cummock MD; Yu Y; Trivedi RA
J Neurosurg Spine; 2010 Jun; 12(6):694-9. PubMed ID: 20515357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Is minimal access spine surgery more cost-effective than conventional spine surgery?
Lubelski D; Mihalovich KE; Skelly AC; Fehlings MG; Harrop JS; Mummaneni PV; Wang MY; Steinmetz MP
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2014 Oct; 39(22 Suppl 1):S65-74. PubMed ID: 25299261
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The cost effectiveness of single-level instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion at 5 years after surgery.
Glassman SD; Polly DW; Dimar JR; Carreon LY
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2012 Apr; 37(9):769-74. PubMed ID: 20489676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A cost benefit analysis of increasing surgical technology in lumbar spine fusion.
Passias PG; Brown AE; Alas H; Bortz CA; Pierce KE; Hassanzadeh H; Labaran LA; Puvanesarajah V; Vasquez-Montes D; Wang E; Ihejirika RC; Diebo BG; Lafage V; Lafage R; Sciubba DM; Janjua MB; Protopsaltis TS; Buckland AJ; Gerling MC
Spine J; 2021 Feb; 21(2):193-201. PubMed ID: 33069859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cost-effectiveness of open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF): a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Droeghaag R; Hermans SMM; Caelers IJMH; Evers SMAA; van Hemert WLW; van Santbrink H
Spine J; 2021 Jun; 21(6):945-954. PubMed ID: 33493680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of open and minimally invasive techniques for posterior lumbar instrumentation and fusion after open anterior lumbar interbody fusion.
Kepler CK; Yu AL; Gruskay JA; Delasotta LA; Radcliff KE; Rihn JA; Hilibrand AS; Anderson DG; Vaccaro AR
Spine J; 2013 May; 13(5):489-97. PubMed ID: 23218509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. A Cost-Effectiveness Comparison Between Open Transforaminal and Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusions Using the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio at 2-Year Follow-up.
Gandhoke GS; Shin HM; Chang YF; Tempel Z; Gerszten PC; Okonkwo DO; Kanter AS
Neurosurgery; 2016 Apr; 78(4):585-95. PubMed ID: 26726969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
