230 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28479526)
1. Superion Interspinous Spacer Treatment of Moderate Spinal Stenosis: 4-Year Results.
Nunley PD; Patel VV; Orndorff DG; Lavelle WF; Block JE; Geisler FH
World Neurosurg; 2017 Aug; 104():279-283. PubMed ID: 28479526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Five-year durability of stand-alone interspinous process decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.
Nunley PD; Patel VV; Orndorff DG; Lavelle WF; Block JE; Geisler FH
Clin Interv Aging; 2017; 12():1409-1417. PubMed ID: 28919727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Superion interspinous process spacer for intermittent neurogenic claudication secondary to moderate lumbar spinal stenosis: two-year results from a randomized controlled FDA-IDE pivotal trial.
Patel VV; Whang PG; Haley TR; Bradley WD; Nunley PD; Davis RP; Miller LE; Block JE; Geisler FH
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2015 Mar; 40(5):275-82. PubMed ID: 25494323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Stand-alone interspinous spacer versus decompressive laminectomy for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.
Lauryssen C; Jackson RJ; Baron JM; Tallarico RA; Lavelle WF; Deutsch H; Block JE; Geisler FH
Expert Rev Med Devices; 2015; 12(6):763-9. PubMed ID: 26487285
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. MILD® Is an Effective Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Neurogenic Claudication: MiDAS ENCORE Randomized Controlled Trial.
Benyamin RM; Staats PS; MiDAS Encore I
Pain Physician; 2016 May; 19(4):229-42. PubMed ID: 27228511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Prospective, randomized, multicenter study with 2-year follow-up to compare the performance of decompression with and without interlaminar stabilization.
Schmidt S; Franke J; Rauschmann M; Adelt D; Bonsanto MM; Sola S
J Neurosurg Spine; 2018 Apr; 28(4):406-415. PubMed ID: 29372860
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Two-year results of interspinous spacer (X-Stop) implantation in 175 patients with neurologic intermittent claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis.
Kuchta J; Sobottke R; Eysel P; Simons P
Eur Spine J; 2009 Jun; 18(6):823-9. PubMed ID: 19387698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Minimally invasive treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with a novel interspinous spacer.
Shabat S; Miller LE; Block JE; Gepstein R
Clin Interv Aging; 2011; 6():227-33. PubMed ID: 21966217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Aperius interspinous implant versus open surgical decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis.
Postacchini R; Ferrari E; Cinotti G; Menchetti PP; Postacchini F
Spine J; 2011 Oct; 11(10):933-9. PubMed ID: 22005077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Superion(®) InterSpinous Spacer for treatment of moderate degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: durable three-year results of a randomized controlled trial.
Patel VV; Nunley PD; Whang PG; Haley TR; Bradley WD; Davis RP; Block JE; Geisler FH
J Pain Res; 2015; 8():657-62. PubMed ID: 26491369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Interspinous Process Decompression: Expanding Treatment Options for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
Nunley PD; Shamie AN; Blumenthal SL; Orndorff D; Block JE; Geisler FH
Biomed Res Int; 2016; 2016():3267307. PubMed ID: 27819001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Cost-effectiveness and Safety of Interspinous Process Decompression (Superion).
Cairns K; Deer T; Sayed D; van Noort K; Liang K
Pain Med; 2019 Dec; 20(Suppl 2):S2-S8. PubMed ID: 31808529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Study of percutaneous lumbar decompression and treatment algorithm for patients suffering from neurogenic claudication.
Deer TR; Kim CK; Bowman RG; Ranson MT; Yee BS
Pain Physician; 2012; 15(6):451-60. PubMed ID: 23159960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Are There Differences Between Patients with Extreme Stenosis and Non-extreme Stenosis in Terms of Pain, Function or Complications After Spinal Decompression Using a Tubular Retractor System?
Kulkarni AG; Das S; Kunder TS
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2020 Feb; 478(2):348-356. PubMed ID: 31633587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Can low-grade spondylolisthesis be effectively treated by either coflex interlaminar stabilization or laminectomy and posterior spinal fusion? Two-year clinical and radiographic results from the randomized, prospective, multicenter US investigational device exemption trial: clinical article.
Davis R; Auerbach JD; Bae H; Errico TJ
J Neurosurg Spine; 2013 Aug; 19(2):174-84. PubMed ID: 23725394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Two-Year Evaluation of the X-STOP Interspinous Spacer in Different Primary Patient Populations With Neurogenic Intermittent Claudication Because of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
Hartjen CA; Resnick DK; Hsu KY; Zucherman JF; Hsu EH; Skidmore GA
Clin Spine Surg; 2016 Aug; 29(7):305-11. PubMed ID: 23168396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Long-term results of percutaneous lumbar decompression mild(®) for spinal stenosis.
Mekhail N; Vallejo R; Coleman MH; Benyamin RM
Pain Pract; 2012 Mar; 12(3):184-93. PubMed ID: 21676166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. MiDAS ENCORE: Randomized Controlled Study Design and Protocol.
Benyamin RM; Staats PS
Pain Physician; 2015; 18(4):307-16. PubMed ID: 26218933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of two FDA-approved interspinous spacers for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: Superion versus X-STOP-a meta-analysis from five randomized controlled trial studies.
Zhao H; Duan LJ; Gao YS; Yang YD; Zhao DY; Tang XS; Hu ZG; Li CH; Chen SX; Liu T; Yu X
J Orthop Surg Res; 2018 Mar; 13(1):42. PubMed ID: 29499734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Interspinous spacer implant in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: preliminary results of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.
Miller LE; Block JE
Pain Res Treat; 2012; 2012():823509. PubMed ID: 22448323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
