BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

3504 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]
    of 176.