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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31978884)

  • 41. Cost-effectiveness of open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF): a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Droeghaag R; Hermans SMM; Caelers IJMH; Evers SMAA; van Hemert WLW; van Santbrink H
    Spine J; 2021 Jun; 21(6):945-954. PubMed ID: 33493680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. [Treatment of grade I and II degree degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion under Quadrant channel].
    Wen J; Yang Y; Zhang H; Liu L; Liu YL; Liu Y; Wang D; Wang ZP
    Zhongguo Gu Shang; 2019 Mar; 32(3):199-206. PubMed ID: 30921999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. [Comparison of clinical effect and muscle injury imaging between oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis].
    Li SB; Mei SQ; Xu WB; Fang XQ; Fan SW; Huang LB
    Zhongguo Gu Shang; 2023 May; 36(5):420-7. PubMed ID: 37211932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. 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]  

  • 45. Intraoperative and perioperative complications in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of 513 patients.
    Wong AP; Smith ZA; Nixon AT; Lawton CD; Dahdaleh NS; Wong RH; Auffinger B; Lam S; Song JK; Liu JC; Koski TR; Fessler RG
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2015 May; 22(5):487-95. PubMed ID: 25700243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. 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]  

  • 47. Utility of multilevel lateral interbody fusion of the thoracolumbar coronal curve apex in adult deformity surgery in combination with open posterior instrumentation and L5-S1 interbody fusion: a case-matched evaluation of 32 patients.
    Theologis AA; Mundis GM; Nguyen S; Okonkwo DO; Mummaneni PV; Smith JS; Shaffrey CI; Fessler R; Bess S; Schwab F; Diebo BG; Burton D; Hart R; Deviren V; Ames C;
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2017 Feb; 26(2):208-219. PubMed ID: 27767682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Comparison of complications, costs, and length of stay of three different lumbar interbody fusion techniques: an analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database.
    Goz V; Weinreb JH; Schwab F; Lafage V; Errico TJ
    Spine J; 2014 Sep; 14(9):2019-27. PubMed ID: 24333459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. 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]  

  • 50. Comparison of the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Retrospective Matched Case-Control Study.
    Shi L; Ding T; Shi Y; Wang F; Wu C
    World Neurosurg; 2022 Nov; 167():e1231-e1240. PubMed ID: 36096389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. The cost-effectiveness of interbody fusions versus posterolateral fusions in 137 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis.
    Bydon M; Macki M; Abt NB; Witham TF; Wolinsky JP; Gokaslan ZL; Bydon A; Sciubba DM
    Spine J; 2015 Mar; 15(3):492-8. PubMed ID: 25463402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. 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]  

  • 53. Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up.
    Dhall SS; Wang MY; Mummaneni PV
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2008 Dec; 9(6):560-5. PubMed ID: 19035748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Rigid Interspinous Process Fixation: A Learning Curve Analysis of a Surgeon Team's First 74 Cases.
    Doherty P; Welch A; Tharpe J; Moore C; Ferry C
    Cureus; 2017 May; 9(5):e1290. PubMed ID: 28680778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Comparison of prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spine disease: A retrospective radiographic propensity score-matched analysis.
    Soliman MAR; Aguirre AO; Ruggiero N; Kuo CC; Mariotti BL; Khan A; Mullin JP; Pollina J
    Clin Neurol Neurosurg; 2022 Feb; 213():107105. PubMed ID: 34973651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the biportal endoscopic techniques versus microscopic tubular technique.
    Kang MS; You KH; Choi JY; Heo DH; Chung HJ; Park HJ
    Spine J; 2021 Dec; 21(12):2066-2077. PubMed ID: 34171465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Longitudinal Trends of Patient Demographics and Morbidity of Different Approaches in Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Analysis Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database.
    Oezel L; Okano I; Hughes AP; Sarin M; Shue J; Sama AA; Cammisa FP; Girardi FP; Soffin EM
    World Neurosurg; 2022 Aug; 164():e183-e193. PubMed ID: 35472646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
    Kulkarni AG; Bohra H; Dhruv A; Sarraf A; Bassi A; Patil VM
    Indian J Orthop; 2016 Sep; 50(5):464-472. PubMed ID: 27746487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Correction of severe spinopelvic mismatch: decreased blood loss with lateral hyperlordotic interbody grafts as compared with pedicle subtraction osteotomy.
    Leveque JC; Yanamadala V; Buchlak QD; Sethi RK
    Neurosurg Focus; 2017 Aug; 43(2):E15. PubMed ID: 28760028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. A Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Grade 1 Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: An Analysis of the Prospective Quality Outcomes Database.
    Chan AK; Bisson EF; Bydon M; Foley KT; Glassman SD; Shaffrey CI; Wang MY; Park P; Potts EA; Shaffrey ME; Coric D; Knightly JJ; Fu KM; Slotkin JR; Asher AL; Virk MS; Kerezoudis P; Alvi MA; Guan J; Haid RW; Mummaneni PV
    Neurosurgery; 2020 Sep; 87(3):555-562. PubMed ID: 32409828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.