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 *

134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38945544)

  • 21. Decompression alone versus decompression with fusion in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Gadjradj PS; Basilious M; Goldberg JL; Sommer F; Navarro-Ramirez R; Mykolajtchuk C; Ng AZ; Medary B; Hussain I; Härtl R
    Eur Spine J; 2023 Mar; 32(3):1054-1067. PubMed ID: 36609887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Mid-term changes in spinopelvic sagittal alignment in lumbar spinal stenosis with coexisting degenerative spondylolisthesis or scoliosis after minimally invasive lumbar decompression surgery: minimum five-year follow-up.
    Salimi H; Toyoda H; Terai H; Yamada K; Hoshino M; Suzuki A; Takahashi S; Tamai K; Hori Y; Yabu A; Nakamura H
    Spine J; 2022 May; 22(5):819-826. PubMed ID: 34813957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Comparison of decompression, decompression plus fusion, and decompression plus stabilization: a long-term follow-up of a prospective, randomized study.
    Inose H; Kato T; Sasaki M; Matsukura Y; Hirai T; Yoshii T; Kawabata S; Hirakawa A; Okawa A
    Spine J; 2022 May; 22(5):747-755. PubMed ID: 34963630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Selective versus multi-segmental decompression and fusion for multi-segment lumbar spinal stenosis with single-segment degenerative spondylolisthesis.
    Sun W; Xue C; Tang XY; Feng H; Yuan F; Guo KJ; Zhao J
    J Orthop Surg Res; 2019 Feb; 14(1):46. PubMed ID: 30755227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Prospective analysis of surgical outcomes in patients undergoing decompressive laminectomy and posterior instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.
    Gelalis ID; Arnaoutoglou C; Christoforou G; Lykissas MG; Batsilas I; Xenakis T
    Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc; 2010; 44(3):235-40. PubMed ID: 21088465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Stability-preserving decompression in degenerative versus congenital spinal stenosis: demographic patterns and patient outcomes.
    Louie PK; Paul JC; Markowitz J; Bell JA; Basques BA; Yacob A; An HS
    Spine J; 2017 Oct; 17(10):1420-1425. PubMed ID: 28456675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Success and failure of minimally invasive decompression for focal lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with and without deformity.
    Kelleher MO; Timlin M; Persaud O; Rampersaud YR
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2010 Sep; 35(19):E981-7. PubMed ID: 20386501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Revision lumbar surgery in elderly patients with symptomatic pseudarthrosis, adjacent-segment disease, or same-level recurrent stenosis. Part 1. Two-year outcomes and clinical efficacy: clinical article.
    Adogwa O; Carr RK; Kudyba K; Karikari I; Bagley CA; Gokaslan ZL; Theodore N; Cheng JS
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2013 Feb; 18(2):139-46. PubMed ID: 23231354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Effectiveness of decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Chang W; Yuwen P; Zhu Y; Wei N; Feng C; Zhang Y; Chen W
    Arch Orthop Trauma Surg; 2017 May; 137(5):637-650. PubMed ID: 28361467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Decompression with fusion is not in superiority to decompression alone in lumbar stenosis based on randomized controlled trials: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis.
    Xu S; Wang J; Liang Y; Zhu Z; Wang K; Qian Y; Liu H
    Medicine (Baltimore); 2019 Nov; 98(46):e17849. PubMed ID: 31725625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Associated With Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Secondary Fusion Rates Following Open vs Minimally Invasive Decompression.
    Schöller K; Alimi M; Cong GT; Christos P; Härtl R
    Neurosurgery; 2017 Mar; 80(3):355-367. PubMed ID: 28362963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Decompression and Coflex interlaminar stabilization compared with decompression and instrumented spinal fusion for spinal stenosis and low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis: two-year results from the prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption trial.
    Davis RJ; Errico TJ; Bae H; Auerbach JD
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Aug; 38(18):1529-39. PubMed ID: 23680830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Reoperations After Decompression With or Without Fusion for L3-4 Spinal Stenosis With Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Study of 372 Patients in Swespine, the National Swedish Spine Register.
    Joelson A; Nerelius F; Holy M; Sigmundsson FG
    Clin Spine Surg; 2022 Apr; 35(3):E389-E393. PubMed ID: 34629386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Prospective, randomized, multicenter study with 2-year follow-up to compare the performance of decompression with and without interlaminar stabilization.
    Schmidt S; Franke J; Rauschmann M; Adelt D; Bonsanto MM; Sola S
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2018 Apr; 28(4):406-415. PubMed ID: 29372860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Clinical outcome of microendoscopic posterior decompression for spinal stenosis associated with degenerative spondylolisthesis--minimum 2-year outcome of 37 patients.
    Ikuta K; Tono O; Oga M
    Minim Invasive Neurosurg; 2008 Oct; 51(5):267-71. PubMed ID: 18855290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.