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 *

195 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35167700)

  • 21. New image-guided ultra-minimally invasive lumbar decompression method: the mild procedure.
    Deer TR; Kapural L
    Pain Physician; 2010; 13(1):35-41. PubMed ID: 20119461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A Comprehensive Review of Novel Interventional Techniques for Chronic Pain: Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Disc Disease-MILD Percutaneous Image Guided Lumbar Decompression, Vertiflex Interspinous Spacer, MinuteMan G3 Interspinous-Interlaminar Fusion.
    Kaye AD; Edinoff AN; Temple SN; Kaye AJ; Chami AA; Shah RJ; Dixon BM; Alvarado MA; Cornett EM; Viswanath O; Urits I; Calodney AK
    Adv Ther; 2021 Sep; 38(9):4628-4645. PubMed ID: 34398386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Endoscope-Assisted Minimally Invasive Interlaminar Lumbar Decompression for Spinal Stenosis.
    Park CH; Lee SH
    Pain Physician; 2019 Nov; 22(6):E573-E578. PubMed ID: 31775410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Decompression alone vs. decompression plus fusion for claudication secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis.
    Thomas K; Faris P; McIntosh G; Manners S; Abraham E; Bailey CS; Paquet J; Cadotte D; Jacobs WB; Rampersaud YR; Manson NA; Hall H; Fisher CG
    Spine J; 2019 Oct; 19(10):1633-1639. PubMed ID: 31195133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial.
    Moojen WA; Arts MP; Jacobs WC; van Zwet EW; van den Akker-van Marle ME; Koes BW; Vleggeert-Lankamp CL; Peul WC;
    BMJ; 2013 Nov; 347():f6415. PubMed ID: 24231273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Comparison of 3 Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
    Hermansen E; Austevoll IM; Hellum C; Storheim K; Myklebust TÅ; Aaen J; Banitalebi H; Anvar M; Rekeland F; Brox JI; Franssen E; Weber C; Solberg TK; Furunes H; Grundnes O; Brisby H; Indrekvam K
    JAMA Netw Open; 2022 Mar; 5(3):e224291. PubMed ID: 35344046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. X-stop versus decompressive surgery for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up.
    Strömqvist BH; Berg S; Gerdhem P; Johnsson R; Möller A; Sahlstrand T; Soliman A; Tullberg T
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Aug; 38(17):1436-42. PubMed ID: 23403549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression and interspinous spacers for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A 2-year Medicare Claims Benchmark Study.
    Staats PS; Hagedorn JM; Reece DE; Strand NH; Poree L
    Pain Pract; 2023 Sep; 23(7):776-784. PubMed ID: 37254613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Distraction Laminoplasty With Interlaminar Lumbar Instrumented Fusion (ILIF) for Lumbar Stenosis With or Without Grade 1 Spondylolisthesis: Technique and 2-Year Outcomes.
    Cuéllar JM; Field JS; Bae HW
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2016 Apr; 41 Suppl 8():S97-S105. PubMed ID: 26839990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Understanding whether chronic lower back pain patients with lumbar spinal stenosis benefit from multiple epidural steroid injections prior to the
    Pryzbylkowski P; Bux A; Chandwani K; Khemlani V; Puri S; Rosenberg J; Sukumaran H
    Pain Manag; 2022 Apr; 12(3):261-266. PubMed ID: 34751594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Indirect Decompression on MRI Chronologically Progresses After Immediate Postlateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: The Results From a Minimum of 2 Years Follow-Up.
    Nakashima H; Kanemura T; Satake K; Ishikawa Y; Ouchida J; Segi N; Yamaguchi H; Imagama S
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2019 Dec; 44(24):E1411-E1418. PubMed ID: 31365515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Effects of minimally invasive decompression surgery on quality of life in older patients with spinal stenosis.
    Dagistan Y; Dagistan E; Gezici AR; Cancan SE; Bilgi M; Cakir U
    Clin Neurol Neurosurg; 2015 Dec; 139():86-90. PubMed ID: 26397214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Incidence of subsequent surgical decompression following minimally invasive approaches to treat lumbar spinal stenosis: A retrospective review.
    Shahzad H; Hussain N; D'Souza RS; Bhatti N; Orhurhu V; Abdel-Rasoul M; Simopoulos T; Essandoh MK; Khan SN; Weaver T
    Pain Pract; 2024 Mar; 24(3):431-439. PubMed ID: 37955267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The incidence of lumbar spine surgery following Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression and Superion Indirect Decompression System for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective review.
    Hagedorn JM; Yadav A; D'Souza RS; DeTemple N; Wolff JS; Parmele JB; Deer TR
    Pain Pract; 2022 Jun; 22(5):516-521. PubMed ID: 35373492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. A prospective comparative study of 2 minimally invasive decompression procedures for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) versus muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression (MILD).
    Arai Y; Hirai T; Yoshii T; Sakai K; Kato T; Enomoto M; Matsumoto R; Yamada T; Kawabata S; Shinomiya K; Okawa A
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2014 Feb; 39(4):332-40. PubMed ID: 24299721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression and Interspinous Process Device for the Management of Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: a Literature Review.
    Merkow J; Varhabhatla N; Manchikanti L; Kaye AD; Urman RD; Yong RJ
    Curr Pain Headache Rep; 2020 Feb; 24(4):13. PubMed ID: 32072362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Decompression of lumbar canal stenosis with a bilateral interlaminar versus classic laminectomy technique: a prospective randomized study.
    Soliman MAR; Ali A
    Neurosurg Focus; 2019 May; 46(5):E3. PubMed ID: 31042649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.