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 *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36700694)

  • 21. Awake minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with a pedicle-based retraction system.
    De Biase G; Bechtle P; Leone B; Quinones-Hinojosa A; Abode-Iyamah K
    Clin Neurol Neurosurg; 2021 Jan; 200():106313. PubMed ID: 33139086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Is Body Mass Index a Risk Factor for Revision Procedures After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion?
    Narain AS; Hijji FY; Bohl DD; Yom KH; Kudaravalli KT; Singh K
    Clin Spine Surg; 2018 Feb; 31(1):E85-E91. PubMed ID: 28538081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective propensity-matched cohort study.
    Porche K; Samra R; Melnick K; Brennan M; Vaziri S; Seubert C; Polifka A; Hoh DJ; Mohamed B
    Spine J; 2022 Mar; 22(3):399-410. PubMed ID: 34687905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Comparative analysis of perioperative surgical site infection after minimally invasive versus open posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of hospital billing and discharge data from 5170 patients.
    McGirt MJ; Parker SL; Lerner J; Engelhart L; Knight T; Wang MY
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2011 Jun; 14(6):771-8. PubMed ID: 21417699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Adult Isthmic Spondylolisthesis: A Radiographic and Outcomes Analysis Comparing Circumferential Fusions Versus TLIF Procedures.
    Karamian BA; Lambrechts MJ; Mao J; D'Antonio ND; Conaway W; Canseco JA; Thandoni A; Singh A; Harlamova D; Kaye ID; Kurd M; Woods BI; Hilibrand AS; Kepler CK; Vaccaro AR; Schroeder GD
    Clin Spine Surg; 2022 Oct; 35(8):E660-E666. PubMed ID: 35385406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Elderly as a Predictor for Perioperative Complications in Patients Undergoing Multilevel Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Regression Modeling Study.
    Claus CF; Lytle E; Tong D; Bahoura M; Garmo L; Yoon E; Jasinski J; Kaufmann A; Richards B; Soo TM
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2020 Jun; 45(11):735-740. PubMed ID: 31860630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Time Course Observation of Outcomes between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.
    Lin GX; Park CK; Hur JW; Kim JS
    Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo); 2019 Jun; 59(6):222-230. PubMed ID: 31068542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Comparison of Minimal Invasive Versus Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-level Lumbar Disease.
    Kim JE; Yoo HS; Choi DJ; Park EJ; Jee SM
    Clin Spine Surg; 2021 Mar; 34(2):E64-E71. PubMed ID: 33633061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Comparison of lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression and minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for one-level lumbar spinal stenosis.
    Hua W; Wang B; Ke W; Wu X; Zhang Y; Li S; Yang S; Yang C
    BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2020 Nov; 21(1):785. PubMed ID: 33246434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Incidence of and risk factors for superior facet violation in minimally invasive versus open pedicle screw placement during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis.
    Lau D; Terman SW; Patel R; La Marca F; Park P
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2013 Apr; 18(4):356-61. PubMed ID: 23394166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. [Comparison of effectiveness between percutaneous coaxial large-channel endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis].
    Liu J; Kong Q; Feng P; Zhang B; Ma J; Hu Y; Wu X; Shu X; Pu C
    Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2022 Jun; 36(6):681-690. PubMed ID: 35712924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Comparative Analysis of Two Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques: Open TLIF Versus Wiltse MIS TLIF.
    Ge DH; Stekas ND; Varlotta CG; Fischer CR; Petrizzo A; Protopsaltis TS; Passias PG; Errico TJ; Buckland AJ
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2019 May; 44(9):E555-E560. PubMed ID: 30325884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Comparative outcome analysis of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia in lumbar fusion surgery.
    Sekerak R; Mostafa E; Morris MT; Nessim A; Vira A; Sharan A
    J Clin Orthop Trauma; 2021 Feb; 13():122-126. PubMed ID: 33680810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [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]  

  • 35. Early Clinical Evaluation of Percutaneous Full-endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Pedicle Screw Insertion for Treating Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
    Zhao XB; Ma HJ; Geng B; Zhou HG; Xia YY
    Orthop Surg; 2021 Feb; 13(1):328-337. PubMed ID: 33426744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Expandable Cages: Increased Risk of Late Postoperative Subsidence Without a Real Improvement of Perioperative Outcomes: A Clinical Monocentric Study.
    Armocida D; Pesce A; Cimatti M; Proietti L; Santoro A; Frati A
    World Neurosurg; 2021 Dec; 156():e57-e63. PubMed ID: 34492389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Complications associated with lumbar laminectomy: a comparison of spinal versus general anesthesia.
    McLain RF; Bell GR; Kalfas I; Tetzlaff JE; Yoon HJ
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2004 Nov; 29(22):2542-7. PubMed ID: 15543071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Versus Direct Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Effect on Return to Work, Narcotic Use, and Quality of life.
    Verla T; Winnegan L; Mayer R; Cherian J; Yaghi N; Palejwala A; Omeis I
    World Neurosurg; 2018 Aug; 116():e321-e328. PubMed ID: 29738856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The Effect of Preoperative Medications on Length of Stay, Inpatient Pain, and Narcotics Consumption After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.
    Haws BE; Khechen B; Patel DV; Bawa MS; Guntin JA; Cardinal KL; Wiggins AB; Singh K
    Clin Spine Surg; 2019 Feb; 32(1):E37-E42. PubMed ID: 30234567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Pathway for Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Decreases Length of Stay and Opioid Consumption.
    Kerolus MG; Yerneni K; Witiw CD; Shelton A; Canar WJ; Daily D; Fontes RBV; Deutsch H; Fessler RG; Buvanendran A; O'Toole JE
    Neurosurgery; 2021 Feb; 88(3):648-657. PubMed ID: 33469652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.