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 *

897 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26515392)

  • 1. Intraoperative reduction does not result in better outcomes in low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis with neurogenic symptoms after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion-a 5-year follow-up study.
    Tay KS; Bassi A; Yeo W; Yue WM
    Spine J; 2016 Feb; 16(2):182-90. PubMed ID: 26515392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Associated lumbar scoliosis does not affect outcomes in patients undergoing focal minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MISTLIF) for neurogenic symptoms-a minimum 2-year follow-up study.
    Tay KS; Bassi A; Yeo W; Yue WM
    Spine J; 2017 Jan; 17(1):34-43. PubMed ID: 27725307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Complete anatomic reduction and monosegmental fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis of Grade II and higher: use of the minimally invasive "rocking" technique.
    Rajakumar DV; Hari A; Krishna M; Sharma A; Reddy M
    Neurosurg Focus; 2017 Aug; 43(2):E12. PubMed ID: 28760034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Dynamic stabilization for L4-5 spondylolisthesis: comparison with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with more than 2 years of follow-up.
    Kuo CH; Chang PY; Wu JC; Chang HK; Fay LY; Tu TH; Cheng H; Huang WC
    Neurosurg Focus; 2016 Jan; 40(1):E3. PubMed ID: 26721577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study.
    Seng C; Siddiqui MA; Wong KP; Zhang K; Yeo W; Tan SB; Yue WM
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Nov; 38(23):2049-55. PubMed ID: 23963015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and decompression alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
    Chan AK; Bisson EF; Bydon M; Glassman SD; Foley KT; Potts EA; Shaffrey CI; Shaffrey ME; Coric D; Knightly JJ; Park P; Wang MY; Fu KM; Slotkin JR; Asher AL; Virk MS; Kerezoudis P; Alvi MA; Guan J; Haid RW; Mummaneni PV
    Neurosurg Focus; 2019 May; 46(5):E13. PubMed ID: 31042655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Isthmic Spondylolisthesis: In Situ Versus Reduction.
    Fan G; Gu G; Zhu Y; Guan X; Hu A; Wu X; Zhang H; He S
    World Neurosurg; 2016 Jun; 90():580-587.e1. PubMed ID: 26915276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A prospective, multi-institutional comparative effectiveness study of lumbar spine surgery in morbidly obese patients: does minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion result in superior outcomes?
    Adogwa O; Carr K; Thompson P; Hoang K; Darlington T; Perez E; Fatemi P; Gottfried O; Cheng J; Isaacs RE
    World Neurosurg; 2015 May; 83(5):860-6. PubMed ID: 25535070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
    Lee KH; Yue WM; Yeo W; Soeharno H; Tan SB
    Eur Spine J; 2012 Nov; 21(11):2265-70. PubMed ID: 22453894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Minimally invasive versus mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in managing low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis.
    Ali EMS; Abdeen M; Saleh MK
    Acta Neurochir (Wien); 2024 Sep; 166(1):365. PubMed ID: 39264454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Assessment of radiographic and clinical outcomes of an articulating expandable interbody cage in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis.
    Massie LW; Zakaria HM; Schultz LR; Basheer A; Buraimoh MA; Chang V
    Neurosurg Focus; 2018 Jan; 44(1):E8. PubMed ID: 29290133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Microendoscopy-Assisted Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: 5-Year Outcomes.
    Yang Y; Liu ZY; Zhang LM; Pang M; Chhantyal K; Wu WB; Chen ZH; Luo CX; Rong LM; Liu B
    World Neurosurg; 2018 Aug; 116():e602-e610. PubMed ID: 29778600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the biportal endoscopic techniques versus microscopic tubular technique.
    Kang MS; You KH; Choi JY; Heo DH; Chung HJ; Park HJ
    Spine J; 2021 Dec; 21(12):2066-2077. PubMed ID: 34171465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Clinical outcomes of single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with bilateral tubular channels].
    Zeng ZL; Jia L; Yu Y; Xu W; Hu X; Zhan XH; Jia YW; Wang JJ; Cheng LM
    Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2017 Apr; 55(4):279-284. PubMed ID: 28355766
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: one surgeon's learning curve.
    Nandyala SV; Fineberg SJ; Pelton M; Singh K
    Spine J; 2014 Aug; 14(8):1460-5. PubMed ID: 24290313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Radiological adjacent-segment degeneration in L4-5 spondylolisthesis: comparison between dynamic stabilization and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
    Kuo CH; Huang WC; Wu JC; Tu TH; Fay LY; Wu CL; Cheng H
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2018 Sep; 29(3):250-258. PubMed ID: 29856306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Comparison of Outcomes between Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Single-Level Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.
    Han XG; Tang GQ; Han X; Xing YG; Zhang Q; He D; Tian W
    Orthop Surg; 2021 Oct; 13(7):2093-2101. PubMed ID: 34596342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 45.