129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38039534)
1. Does diabetes affect outcome or reoperation rate after lumbar decompression or arthrodesis? A matched analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database data set.
Mooney J; Nathani KR; Zeitouni D; Michalopoulos GD; Wang MY; Coric D; Chan AK; Lu DC; Sherrod BA; Gottfried ON; Shaffrey CI; Than KD; Goldberg JL; Hussain I; Virk MS; Agarwal N; Glassman SD; Shaffrey ME; Park P; Foley KT; Chou D; Slotkin JR; Tumialán LM; Upadhyaya CD; Potts EA; Fu KG; Haid RW; Knightly JJ; Mummaneni PV; Bisson EF; Asher AL; Bydon M
J Neurosurg Spine; 2024 Mar; 40(3):331-342. PubMed ID: 38039534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Laminectomy alone versus fusion for grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis in 426 patients from the prospective Quality Outcomes Database.
Chan AK; Bisson EF; Bydon M; Glassman SD; Foley KT; Potts EA; Shaffrey CI; Shaffrey ME; Coric D; Knightly JJ; Park P; Wang MY; Fu KM; Slotkin JR; Asher AL; Virk MS; Kerezoudis P; Chotai S; DiGiorgio AM; Haid RW; Mummaneni PV
J Neurosurg Spine; 2018 Nov; 30(2):234-241. PubMed ID: 30544348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Complications, readmissions, reoperations and patient-reported outcomes in patients with multiple sclerosis undergoing elective spine surgery - a propensity matched analysis.
Steinle AM; Nian H; Pennings JS; Bydon M; Asher A; Archer KR; Gardocki RJ; Zuckerman SL; Stephens BF; Abtahi AM
Spine J; 2022 Nov; 22(11):1820-1829. PubMed ID: 35779839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Revision lumbar fusions have higher rates of reoperation and result in worse clinical outcomes compared to primary lumbar fusions.
Lambrechts MJ; Toci GR; Siegel N; Karamian BA; Canseco JA; Hilibrand AS; Schroeder GD; Vaccaro AR; Kepler CK
Spine J; 2023 Jan; 23(1):105-115. PubMed ID: 36064090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Outpatient versus inpatient lumbar decompression surgery: a matched noninferiority study investigating clinical and patient-reported outcomes.
Mooney J; Michalopoulos GD; Zeitouni D; Sammak SE; Alvi MA; Wang MY; Coric D; Chan AK; Mummaneni PV; Bisson EF; Sherrod B; Haid RW; Knightly JJ; Devin CJ; Pennicooke BH; Asher AL; Bydon M
J Neurosurg Spine; 2022 Oct; 37(4):485-497. PubMed ID: 35523251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Minimally invasive versus open fusion for Grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database.
Mummaneni PV; Bisson EF; Kerezoudis P; Glassman S; Foley K; Slotkin JR; Potts E; Shaffrey M; Shaffrey CI; Coric D; Knightly J; Park P; Fu KM; Devin CJ; Chotai S; Chan AK; Virk M; Asher AL; Bydon M
Neurosurg Focus; 2017 Aug; 43(2):E11. PubMed ID: 28760035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis.
Machado GC; Ferreira PH; Yoo RI; Harris IA; Pinheiro MB; Koes BW; van Tulder MW; Rzewuska M; Maher CG; Ferreira ML
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2016 Nov; 11(11):CD012421. PubMed ID: 27801521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Risk factors for 90-day reoperation and readmission after lumbar surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.
Ilyas H; Golubovsky JL; Chen J; Winkelman RD; Mroz TE; Steinmetz MP
J Neurosurg Spine; 2019 Apr; 31(1):20-26. PubMed ID: 32167269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and decompression alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
Chan AK; Bisson EF; Bydon M; Glassman SD; Foley KT; Potts EA; Shaffrey CI; Shaffrey ME; Coric D; Knightly JJ; Park P; Wang MY; Fu KM; Slotkin JR; Asher AL; Virk MS; Kerezoudis P; Alvi MA; Guan J; Haid RW; Mummaneni PV
Neurosurg Focus; 2019 May; 46(5):E13. PubMed ID: 31042655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Impact of obesity on complications and outcomes: a comparison of fusion and nonfusion lumbar spine surgery.
Onyekwelu I; Glassman SD; Asher AL; Shaffrey CI; Mummaneni PV; Carreon LY
J Neurosurg Spine; 2017 Feb; 26(2):158-162. PubMed ID: 27740396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Should patients with lumbar stenosis and grade I spondylolisthesis be treated differently based on spinopelvic alignment? A retrospective, two-year, propensity matched, comparison of patient-reported outcome measures and clinical outcomes from multiple sites within a single health system.
Mohanty S; Barchick S; Kadiyala M; Lad M; Rouhi AD; Vadali C; Albayar A; Ozturk AK; Khalsa A; Saifi C; Casper DS
Spine J; 2023 Jan; 23(1):92-104. PubMed ID: 36064091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of minimally invasive decompression alone versus minimally invasive short-segment fusion in the setting of adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Echt M; Bakare AA; Varela JR; Platt A; Abdul Sami M; Molenda J; Kerolus M; Fessler RG
J Neurosurg Spine; 2023 Sep; 39(3):394-403. PubMed ID: 37327145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Complications, Readmissions, Revisions, and Patient-reported Outcomes in Patients With Parkinson Disease Undergoing Elective Spine Surgery: A Propensity-matched Analysis.
Steinle AM; Nian H; Pennings JS; Bydon M; Asher A; Archer KR; Gardocki RJ; Zuckerman SL; Stephens BF; Abtahi AM
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2022 Oct; 47(20):1452-1462. PubMed ID: 35796661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Revision surgery following operations for lumbar stenosis.
Deyo RA; Martin BI; Kreuter W; Jarvik JG; Angier H; Mirza SK
J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2011 Nov; 93(21):1979-86. PubMed ID: 22048092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The Ideal Threshold of Hemoglobin A1C in Diabetic Patients Undergoing Elective Lumbar Decompression Surgery.
Gupta R; Chanbour H; Roth SG; O'Brien A; Davidson C; Devin CJ; Stephens BF; Abtahi AM; Zuckerman SL
Clin Spine Surg; 2023 Jul; 36(6):E226-E233. PubMed ID: 36210491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Open versus minimally invasive decompression for low-grade spondylolisthesis: analysis from the Quality Outcomes Database.
Bisson EF; Mummaneni PV; Virk MS; Knightly J; Alvi MA; Goyal A; Chan AK; Guan J; Glassman S; Foley K; Slotkin JR; Potts EA; Shaffrey ME; Shaffrey CI; Haid RW; Fu KM; Wang MY; Park P; Asher AL; Bydon M
J Neurosurg Spine; 2020 May; 33(3):349-359. PubMed ID: 32384269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Complications, reoperation rates, and health-care cost following surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.
Lad SP; Babu R; Baker AA; Ugiliweneza B; Kong M; Bagley CA; Gottfried ON; Isaacs RE; Patil CG; Boakye M
J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2013 Nov; 95(21):e162. PubMed ID: 24196474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Modified-frailty index does not independently predict complications, hospital length of stay or 30-day readmission rates following posterior lumbar decompression and fusion for spondylolisthesis.
Elsamadicy AA; Freedman IG; Koo AB; David WB; Reeves BC; Havlik J; Pennington Z; Kolb L; Shin JH; Sciubba DM
Spine J; 2021 Nov; 21(11):1812-1821. PubMed ID: 34010683
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Risk factors for 30-day reoperation and 3-month readmission: analysis from the Quality and Outcomes Database lumbar spine registry.
Wadhwa RK; Ohya J; Vogel TD; Carreon LY; Asher AL; Knightly JJ; Shaffrey CI; Glassman SD; Mummaneni PV
J Neurosurg Spine; 2017 Aug; 27(2):131-136. PubMed ID: 28574331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Is the use of minimally invasive fusion technologies associated with improved outcomes after elective interbody lumbar fusion? Analysis of a nationwide prospective patient-reported outcomes registry.
McGirt MJ; Parker SL; Mummaneni P; Knightly J; Pfortmiller D; Foley K; Asher AL
Spine J; 2017 Jul; 17(7):922-932. PubMed ID: 28254672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
