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 *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33130132)

  • 1. Use of Local Morselized Bone Autograft in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Cost Analysis.
    Halalmeh DR; Perez-Cruet MJ
    World Neurosurg; 2021 Feb; 146():e544-e554. PubMed ID: 33130132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Clinical and radiographic outcomes using local bone shavings as autograft in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
    Kasliwal MK; Deutsch H
    World Neurosurg; 2012 Jul; 78(1-2):185-90. PubMed ID: 22120378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Cost-utility of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: systematic review and economic evaluation.
    Phan K; Hogan JA; Mobbs RJ
    Eur Spine J; 2015 Nov; 24(11):2503-13. PubMed ID: 26195079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature.
    Joseph JR; Smith BW; La Marca F; Park P
    Neurosurg Focus; 2015 Oct; 39(4):E4. PubMed ID: 26424344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. [COMPARISON OF EFFECTIVENESS BETWEEN PARA-MEDIAN INCISION MINIMALLY INVASIVE AND OPEN TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION FOR SINGLE SEGMENTAL LUMBAR DEGENERATIVE DISEASE].
    Qi Q; Xiao Q; Deng L; Li C; Dong X
    Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2015 Oct; 29(10):1253-8. PubMed ID: 26749734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Perioperative complications related to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion: evaluation of 204 operations on lumbar instability at single center.
    Wang J; Zhou Y
    Spine J; 2014 Sep; 14(9):2078-84. PubMed ID: 24361997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of peri-operative and 12-month lifestyle outcomes in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus conventional lumbar fusion.
    Virdee JS; Nadig A; Anagnostopoulos G; George KJ
    Br J Neurosurg; 2017 Apr; 31(2):167-171. PubMed ID: 27331649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Effectiveness of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion assisted with microscope in treatment of lumbar degenerative disease].
    Zhang W; Duan L; Shang X; Xu X; Hu Y; He R
    Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2013 Mar; 27(3):268-73. PubMed ID: 23672122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Unilateral Fixation for Degenerative Lumbar Disease.
    Wang HW; Hu YC; Wu ZY; Wu HR; Wu CF; Zhang LS; Xu WK; Fan HL; Cai JS; Ma JQ
    Orthop Surg; 2017 Aug; 9(3):277-283. PubMed ID: 28960820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A Cost-Effectiveness Comparison Between Open Transforaminal and Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusions Using the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio at 2-Year Follow-up.
    Gandhoke GS; Shin HM; Chang YF; Tempel Z; Gerszten PC; Okonkwo DO; Kanter AS
    Neurosurgery; 2016 Apr; 78(4):585-95. PubMed ID: 26726969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The role of Osteocel Plus as a fusion substrate in minimally invasive instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
    Ammerman JM; Libricz J; Ammerman MD
    Clin Neurol Neurosurg; 2013 Jul; 115(7):991-4. PubMed ID: 23182179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of Preliminary clinical outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases in a tertiary hospital: Is percutaneous endoscopic procedure superior to MIS-TLIF? A prospective cohort study.
    Ao S; Zheng W; Wu J; Tang Y; Zhang C; Zhou Y; Li C
    Int J Surg; 2020 Apr; 76():136-143. PubMed ID: 32165279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The effect of surgical level on self-reported clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: L4-L5 versus L5-S1.
    Lawton CD; Smith ZA; Nixon AT; Dahdaleh NS; Wong AP; Khanna R; Barnawi A; Fessler RG
    World Neurosurg; 2014 Jan; 81(1):177-82. PubMed ID: 23916495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparative effectiveness of two different interbody fusion methods for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: cage versus morselized impacted bone grafts.
    Lv C; Li X; Zhang H; Lv J; Zhang H
    BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2015 Aug; 16():207. PubMed ID: 26285579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.