3493 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28254672)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Laminectomy alone versus fusion for grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis in 426 patients from the prospective Quality Outcomes Database.
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; Chotai S; DiGiorgio AM; Haid RW; Mummaneni PV
J Neurosurg Spine; 2018 Nov; 30(2):234-241. PubMed ID: 30544348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Comparison of minimally invasive spine surgery using intraoperative computed tomography integrated navigation, fluoroscopy, and conventional open surgery for lumbar spondylolisthesis: a prospective registry-based cohort study.
Wu MH; Dubey NK; Li YY; Lee CY; Cheng CC; Shi CS; Huang TJ
Spine J; 2017 Aug; 17(8):1082-1090. PubMed ID: 28412560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Long-term durability of minimal invasive posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiographic follow-up.
Rouben D; Casnellie M; Ferguson M
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2011 Jul; 24(5):288-96. PubMed ID: 20975594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Anterolateral versus posterior minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion surgery for spondylolisthesis: comparison of outcomes from a global, multicenter study at 12-months follow-up.
Pereira P; Park Y; Arzoglou V; Charles YP; Krutko A; Senker W; Park SW; Franke J; Fuentes S; Bordon G; Song Y; He S; Vialle E; Mlyavykh S; Varanda P; Hosszu T; Bhagat S; Hong JY; Vanhauwaert D; de la Dehesa P
Spine J; 2023 Oct; 23(10):1494-1505. PubMed ID: 37236367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion without general anesthesia: operative and clinical outcomes in 100 consecutive patients with a minimum 1-year follow-up.
Kolcun JPG; Brusko GD; Basil GW; Epstein R; Wang MY
Neurosurg Focus; 2019 Apr; 46(4):E14. PubMed ID: 30933915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life.
Adogwa O; Parker SL; Bydon A; Cheng J; McGirt MJ
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2011 Dec; 24(8):479-84. PubMed ID: 21336176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Revisions for screw malposition and clinical outcomes after robot-guided lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis.
Schröder ML; Staartjes VE
Neurosurg Focus; 2017 May; 42(5):E12. PubMed ID: 28463610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Impact of local steroid application in a minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: results of a prospective, randomized, single-blind trial.
Haws BE; Khechen B; Patel DV; Bawa MS; Ahn J; Bohl DD; Mayo BC; Massel DH; Guntin JA; Cardinal KL; Singh K
J Neurosurg Spine; 2018 Nov; 30(2):222-227. PubMed ID: 30497132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
