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 *

129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36700694)

  • 1. Periprocedural Polypharmacy in Lumbar Fusions Performed Under Spinal Anesthesia Compared With General Anesthesia.
    Olmos M; Hernandez NS; Kanter M; Liu P; Riesenburger RI; Kryzanski J
    Neurosurgery; 2023 Mar; 92(3):632-638. PubMed ID: 36700694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Spinal Anesthesia Reduces Perioperative Polypharmacy and Opioid Burden in Patients Over 65 Who Undergo Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.
    Karimi H; Patel J; Olmos M; Kanter M; Hernandez NS; Silver RE; Liu P; Riesenburger RI; Kryzanski J
    World Neurosurg; 2024 May; 185():e758-e766. PubMed ID: 38432509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Spinal versus general anesthesia for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications on operating room time, pain, and ambulation.
    De Biase G; Gruenbaum SE; West JL; Chen S; Bojaxhi E; Kryzanski J; Quiñones-Hinojosa A; Abode-Iyamah K
    Neurosurg Focus; 2021 Dec; 51(6):E3. PubMed ID: 34852316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Spinal versus general anesthesia for lumbar spine surgery in high risk patients: Perioperative hemodynamic stability, complications and costs.
    Finsterwald M; Muster M; Farshad M; Saporito A; Brada M; Aguirre JA
    J Clin Anesth; 2018 May; 46():3-7. PubMed ID: 29316474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Assessing the Environmental Carbon Footprint of Spinal versus General Anesthesia in Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusions.
    Wang AY; Ahsan T; Kosarchuk JJ; Liu P; Riesenburger RI; Kryzanski J
    World Neurosurg; 2022 Jul; 163():e199-e206. PubMed ID: 35342029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of 270-degree percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression under local anesthesia and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of geriatric lateral recess stenosis associated with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
    Li Y; Cheng X; Chen B
    J Orthop Surg Res; 2023 Mar; 18(1):183. PubMed ID: 36895012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 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. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable versus static interbody devices: radiographic assessment of sagittal segmental and pelvic parameters.
    Hawasli AH; Khalifeh JM; Chatrath A; Yarbrough CK; Ray WZ
    Neurosurg Focus; 2017 Aug; 43(2):E10. PubMed ID: 28760032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Expandable cages increase the risk of intraoperative subsidence but do not improve perioperative outcomes in single level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
    Stickley C; Philipp T; Wang E; Zhong J; Balouch E; O'Malley N; Leon C; Maglaras C; Manning J; Varlotta C; Buckland AJ
    Spine J; 2021 Jan; 21(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 32890783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Does loss of spondylolisthesis reduction impact clinical and radiographic outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion?
    Steinhaus ME; Vaishnav AS; Shah SP; Clark NJ; Chaudhary CB; Othman YA; Urakawa H; Samuel AM; Lovecchio FC; Sheha ED; McAnany SJ; Qureshi SA
    Spine J; 2022 Jan; 22(1):95-103. PubMed ID: 34118417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A comparison of perioperative costs and outcomes in patients with and without workers' compensation claims treated with minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
    Pelton MA; Phillips FM; Singh K
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2012 Oct; 37(22):1914-9. PubMed ID: 22487713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Single-level awake transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a Mayo Clinic institutional experience and national analysis.
    Abode-Iyamah K; Ghaith AK; Bhandarkar AR; De Biase G; Rajjoub R; Chen SG; Quiñones-Hinojosa A; Bydon M
    Neurosurg Focus; 2021 Dec; 51(6):E4. PubMed ID: 34852317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Posterior Instrumentation at L5/S1.
    Jacob KC; Patel MR; Ribot MA; Parsons AW; Vanjani NN; Pawlowski H; Prabhu MC; Singh K
    World Neurosurg; 2022 Jan; 157():e111-e122. PubMed ID: 34610449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Minimally invasive interbody fusion for revision lumbar surgery: technical feasibility and safety.
    Selznick LA; Shamji MF; Isaacs RE
    J Spinal Disord Tech; 2009 May; 22(3):207-13. PubMed ID: 19412024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.