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 *

3535 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 177.