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 *

211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28655308)

  • 1. A systematic literature review of time to return to work and narcotic use after lumbar spinal fusion using minimal invasive and open surgery techniques.
    Wang X; Borgman B; Vertuani S; Nilsson J
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2017 Jun; 17(1):446. PubMed ID: 28655308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effect of minimally invasive technique on return to work and narcotic use following transforaminal lumbar inter-body fusion: a review.
    Parker SL; Lerner J; McGirt MJ
    Prof Case Manag; 2012; 17(5):229-35. PubMed ID: 22850657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Versus Direct Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Effect on Return to Work, Narcotic Use, and Quality of life.
    Verla T; Winnegan L; Mayer R; Cherian J; Yaghi N; Palejwala A; Omeis I
    World Neurosurg; 2018 Aug; 116():e321-e328. PubMed ID: 29738856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Minimally Invasive Versus Traditional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Single-Level Spondylolisthesis Grades 1 and 2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
    Qin R; Liu B; Zhou P; Yao Y; Hao J; Yang K; Xu TL; Zhang F; Chen X
    World Neurosurg; 2019 Feb; 122():180-189. PubMed ID: 30414524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Comparison of effectiveness between percutaneous coaxial large-channel endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis].
    Liu J; Kong Q; Feng P; Zhang B; Ma J; Hu Y; Wu X; Shu X; Pu C
    Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2022 Jun; 36(6):681-690. PubMed ID: 35712924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. [Two different techniques combined with MIS-TLIF in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis:a case-control study].
    Pu XY; Luo WY; Gao MX; Ma GF; Zhang C; Chi F; Qian YW
    Zhongguo Gu Shang; 2022 May; 35(5):409-17. PubMed ID: 35535527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.
    Li W; Wei H; Zhang R
    BMC Surg; 2023 Nov; 23(1):345. PubMed ID: 37968633
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.
    Cui GY; Han XG; Wei Y; Liu YJ; He D; Sun YQ; Liu B; Tian W
    Orthop Surg; 2021 Oct; 13(7):1960-1968. PubMed ID: 34516712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Comparing the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Luan H; Peng C; Liu K; Song X
    J Orthop Surg Res; 2023 Nov; 18(1):888. PubMed ID: 37993948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective observational study.
    Chen H; Zheng G; Bian Z; Hou C; Li M; Zhang Z; Zhu L; Wang X
    J Orthop Surg Res; 2023 May; 18(1):389. PubMed ID: 37245051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Complications Between Percutaneous Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
    Zhu L; Cai T; Shan Y; Zhang W; Zhang L; Feng X
    Pain Physician; 2021 Sep; 24(6):441-452. PubMed ID: 34554684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Psychological and Functional Comparison between Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
    Yu B; Zhang J; Pan J; Wang Y; Chen Y; Zhao W; Wu D
    Orthop Surg; 2021 Jun; 13(4):1213-1226. PubMed ID: 33943023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Clinical Outcomes of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Three-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
    Fan G; Wu X; Yu S; Sun Q; Guan X; Zhang H; Gu X; He S
    Biomed Res Int; 2016; 2016():9540298. PubMed ID: 27747244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.