440 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30410142)
21. Factors associated with improvement in sagittal spinal alignment after microendoscopic laminotomy in patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis.
Dohzono S; Toyoda H; Takahashi S; Matsumoto T; Suzuki A; Terai H; Nakamura H
J Neurosurg Spine; 2016 Jul; 25(1):39-45. PubMed ID: 26967988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Surgical outcomes of modified lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis.
Kanbara S; Yukawa Y; Ito K; Machino M; Kato F
J Neurosurg Spine; 2015 Apr; 22(4):353-7. PubMed ID: 25594729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Clinical outcomes following sublaminar decompression and instrumented fusion for lumbar degenerative spinal pathology.
Peddada K; Elder BD; Ishida W; Lo SL; Goodwin CR; Boah AO; Witham TF
J Clin Neurosci; 2016 Aug; 30():98-104. PubMed ID: 27056673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Long-term clinical and radiological postoperative outcomes after an interspinous microdecompression of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.
Jalil Y; Carvalho C; Becker R
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2014 Mar; 39(5):368-73. PubMed ID: 24365893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. A comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies for decompression of L4-L5 spinal stenosis.
Hong SW; Choi KY; Ahn Y; Baek OK; Wang JC; Lee SH; Lee HY
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2011 Feb; 36(3):E172-8. PubMed ID: 21192307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Reduced postoperative wound pain after lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis: a randomized controlled study.
Watanabe K; Matsumoto M; Ikegami T; Nishiwaki Y; Tsuji T; Ishii K; Ogawa Y; Takaishi H; Nakamura M; Toyama Y; Chiba K
J Neurosurg Spine; 2011 Jan; 14(1):51-8. PubMed ID: 21142464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Lumbar spinous process splitting decompression provides equivalent outcomes to conventional midline decompression in degenerative lumbar canal stenosis: a prospective, randomized controlled study of 51 patients.
Rajasekaran S; Thomas A; Kanna RM; Prasad Shetty A
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Sep; 38(20):1737-43. PubMed ID: 23797498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.
Hermansen E; Romild UK; Austevoll IM; Solberg T; Storheim K; Brox JI; Hellum C; Indrekvam K
Eur Spine J; 2017 Feb; 26(2):420-427. PubMed ID: 27262561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Results after lumbar decompression with and without discectomy: comparison of the transspinous and conventional approaches.
Jayarao M; Chin LS
Neurosurgery; 2010 Mar; 66(3 Suppl Operative):152-60. PubMed ID: 20173565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Evaluation of Interspinous Spacer Outcomes in Degenerative Lumbar Canal Stenosis: Clinical Study.
Abdel Ghany W; Amer A; Saeed K; Emara E; Hamad A; Nosseir M; Dawood O; Nada MA
World Neurosurg; 2016 Nov; 95():556-564.e3. PubMed ID: 27514696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Spinous process splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis: a critical appraisal.
Lee DY; Lee SH
Minim Invasive Neurosurg; 2008 Aug; 51(4):204-7. PubMed ID: 18683110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Clinical outcome of microscopic lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy: clinical article.
Nomura H; Yanagisawa Y; Arima J; Oga M
J Neurosurg Spine; 2014 Aug; 21(2):187-94. PubMed ID: 24878270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Irrigation endoscopic decompressive laminotomy. A new endoscopic approach for spinal stenosis decompression.
Soliman HM
Spine J; 2015 Oct; 15(10):2282-9. PubMed ID: 26165475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis.
Overdevest G; Vleggeert-Lankamp C; Jacobs W; Thomé C; Gunzburg R; Peul W
Eur Spine J; 2015 Oct; 24(10):2244-63. PubMed ID: 26184719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Minimally invasive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis: clinical outcome and reoperation rates.
Alimi M; Hofstetter CP; Pyo SY; Paulo D; Härtl R
J Neurosurg Spine; 2015 Apr; 22(4):339-52. PubMed ID: 25635635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Study-protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing clinical and radiological results after three different posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: the Spinal Stenosis Trial (SST) (part of the NORDSTEN Study).
Hermansen E; Austevoll IM; Romild UK; Rekeland F; Solberg T; Storheim K; Grundnes O; Aaen J; Brox JI; Hellum C; Indrekvam K
BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2017 Mar; 18(1):121. PubMed ID: 28327114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Long-term outcomes of two different decompressive techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis.
Fu YS; Zeng BF; Xu JG
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Mar; 33(5):514-8. PubMed ID: 18317196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Decompression and nonfusion dynamic stabilization for spinal stenosis with degenerative lumbar scoliosis: Clinical article.
Lee SE; Jahng TA; Kim HJ
J Neurosurg Spine; 2014 Oct; 21(4):585-94. PubMed ID: 25084033
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Clinical and psychofunctional measures of conservative decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective cohort study.
Gunzburg R; Keller TS; Szpalski M; Vandeputte K; Spratt KF
Eur Spine J; 2003 Apr; 12(2):197-204. PubMed ID: 12709858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Midterm outcome after unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: 5-year prospective study.
Cavuşoğlu H; Kaya RA; Türkmenoglu ON; Tuncer C; Colak I; Aydin Y
Eur Spine J; 2007 Dec; 16(12):2133-42. PubMed ID: 17712577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
