687 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27246490)
1. A comparison of minimally invasive posterior cervical decompression and open anterior cervical decompression and instrumented fusion in the surgical management of degenerative cervical myelopathy.
Abbas SF; Spurgas MP; Szewczyk BS; Yim B; Ata A; German JW
Neurosurg Focus; 2016 Jun; 40(6):E7. PubMed ID: 27246490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Preoperative mental health status may not be predictive of improvements in patient-reported outcomes following an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.
Mayo BC; Massel DH; Bohl DD; Narain AS; Hijji FY; Long WW; Modi KD; Basques BA; Yacob A; Singh K
J Neurosurg Spine; 2017 Feb; 26(2):177-182. PubMed ID: 27689424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article.
Parker SL; Godil SS; Shau DN; Mendenhall SK; McGirt MJ
J Neurosurg Spine; 2013 Feb; 18(2):154-60. PubMed ID: 23176164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Neck Disability Index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion.
Carreon LY; Glassman SD; Campbell MJ; Anderson PA
Spine J; 2010 Jun; 10(6):469-74. PubMed ID: 20359958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The effect of length of follow-up on substantial clinical benefit thresholds in patients undergoing surgery for cervical degenerative myelopathy.
Spurgas MP; Abbas SF; Szewczyk BS; Yim B; Ata A; German JW
J Clin Neurosci; 2019 Apr; 62():88-93. PubMed ID: 30660480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Surgically treated cervical myelopathy: a functional outcome comparison study between multilevel anterior cervical decompression fusion with instrumentation and posterior laminoplasty.
Seng C; Tow BP; Siddiqui MA; Srivastava A; Wang L; Yew AK; Yeo W; Khoo SH; Balakrishnan NM; Bin Abd Razak HR; Chen JL; Guo CM; Tan SB; Yue WM
Spine J; 2013 Jul; 13(7):723-31. PubMed ID: 23541452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The effect of minimally invasive posterior cervical approaches versus open anterior approaches on neck pain and disability.
Steinberg JA; German JW
Int J Spine Surg; 2012; 6():55-61. PubMed ID: 25694872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Patients with radiculopathy have worse baseline disability and greater improvements following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion compared to patients with myelopathy.
Toci GR; Lambrechts MJ; Karamian BA; Canseco JA; Hilibrand AS; Kepler CK; Vaccaro AR; Schroeder GD
Spine J; 2023 Feb; 23(2):238-246. PubMed ID: 36257530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effect on clinical outcomes of patient pain expectancies and preoperative Mental Component Summary scores from the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.
Carr FA; Healy KM; Villavicencio AT; Nelson EL; Mason A; Burneikiene S; Hernández TD
J Neurosurg Spine; 2011 Nov; 15(5):486-90. PubMed ID: 21819184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Patient phenotypes associated with outcome following surgery for mild degenerative cervical myelopathy: a principal component regression analysis.
Badhiwala JH; Witiw CD; Nassiri F; Jaja BNR; Akbar MA; Mansouri A; Merali Z; Ibrahim GM; Wilson JR; Fehlings MG
Spine J; 2018 Dec; 18(12):2220-2231. PubMed ID: 29746963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Arthroplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: similar results to patients with only radiculopathy at 3 years' follow-up.
Fay LY; Huang WC; Wu JC; Chang HK; Tsai TY; Ko CC; Tu TH; Wu CL; Cheng H
J Neurosurg Spine; 2014 Sep; 21(3):400-10. PubMed ID: 24926929
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Two-level corpectomy versus three-level discectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a comparison of perioperative, radiographic, and clinical outcomes.
Lau D; Chou D; Mummaneni PV
J Neurosurg Spine; 2015 Sep; 23(3):280-9. PubMed ID: 26091438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Measuring surgical outcomes in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: assessment of minimum clinically important difference.
Auffinger BM; Lall RR; Dahdaleh NS; Wong AP; Lam SK; Koski T; Fessler RG; Smith ZA
PLoS One; 2013; 8(6):e67408. PubMed ID: 23826290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The effect of minimally invasive dorsal cervical decompression for myelopathy on spinal alignment and range of motion.
Szewczyk BS; Riccio AR; Entezami P; German JW
Clin Neurol Neurosurg; 2020 Sep; 196():105967. PubMed ID: 32604033
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The likelihood of reaching minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit at 2 years following a 3-column osteotomy: analysis of 140 patients.
Fakurnejad S; Scheer JK; Lafage V; Smith JS; Deviren V; Hostin R; Mundis GM; Burton DC; Klineberg E; Gupta M; Kebaish K; Shaffrey CI; Bess S; Schwab F; Ames CP;
J Neurosurg Spine; 2015 Sep; 23(3):340-8. PubMed ID: 26091440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy with tubes to prevent undesired fusion: a long-term follow-up study.
Dunn C; Moore J; Sahai N; Issa K; Faloon M; Sinha K; Hwang KS; Emami A
J Neurosurg Spine; 2018 Oct; 29(4):358-364. PubMed ID: 29957145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Stabilization with the Dynamic Cervical Implant: a novel treatment approach following cervical discectomy and decompression.
Matgé G; Berthold C; Gunness VR; Hana A; Hertel F
J Neurosurg Spine; 2015 Mar; 22(3):237-45. PubMed ID: 25555050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Posterior Cervical Fusion Using Cervical Interfacet Spacers in Patients With Symptomatic Cervical Pseudarthrosis.
Kasliwal MK; Corley JA; Traynelis VC
Neurosurgery; 2016 May; 78(5):661-8. PubMed ID: 26516824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Minimum Clinically Important Difference in SF-36 Scores for Use in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy.
Badhiwala JH; Witiw CD; Nassiri F; Akbar MA; Jaja B; Wilson JR; Fehlings MG
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2018 Nov; 43(21):E1260-E1266. PubMed ID: 29652783
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Accurately measuring the quality and effectiveness of cervical spine surgery in registry efforts: determining the most valid and responsive instruments.
Godil SS; Parker SL; Zuckerman SL; Mendenhall SK; McGirt MJ
Spine J; 2015 Jun; 15(6):1203-9. PubMed ID: 24076442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
