Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 406

1.

Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life.

Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ.

J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011 Dec;24(8):479-84. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182055cac.

PMID:
21336176
2.

Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis.

Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, Zuckerman SL, Godil SS, Cheng JS, McGirt MJ.

World Neurosurg. 2014 Jul-Aug;82(1-2):230-8. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2013.01.041. Epub 2013 Jan 12.

PMID:
23321379
3.
4.

Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years.

Parker SL, Adogwa O, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ.

World Neurosurg. 2012 Jul;78(1-2):178-84. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2011.09.013. Epub 2011 Nov 7.

PMID:
22120269
5.
6.

A prospective, multi-institutional comparative effectiveness study of lumbar spine surgery in morbidly obese patients: does minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion result in superior outcomes?

Adogwa O, Carr K, Thompson P, Hoang K, Darlington T, Perez E, Fatemi P, Gottfried O, Cheng J, Isaacs RE.

World Neurosurg. 2015 May;83(5):860-6. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2014.12.034. Epub 2014 Dec 19.

PMID:
25535070
7.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases.

Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, Xiangqian F.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Aug 1;35(17):1615-20. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c70fe3.

PMID:
20479702
8.

[Comparison of short-term effectiveness between minimally invasive surgery- and open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar degenerative disease].

Yang J, Kong Q, Song Y, Liu H, Zeng J.

Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2013 Mar;27(3):262-7. Chinese.

PMID:
23672121
9.

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 1;14(8):1694-701. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.053. Epub 2013 Nov 16.

PMID:
24252237
10.

Extent of intraoperative muscle dissection does not affect long-term outcomes after minimally invasive surgery versus open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery: A prospective longitudinal cohort study.

Adogwa O, Johnson K, Min ET, Issar N, Carr KR, Huang K, Cheng J.

Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3(Suppl 5):S355-61. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.103868. Epub 2012 Nov 26.

11.

Cost-effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Adogwa O, Parker SL, Davis BJ, Aaronson O, Devin C, Cheng JS, McGirt MJ.

J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 Aug;15(2):138-43. doi: 10.3171/2011.3.SPINE10562. Epub 2011 May 6.

PMID:
21529203
12.

Long-term durability of minimal invasive posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiographic follow-up.

Rouben D, Casnellie M, Ferguson M.

J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011 Jul;24(5):288-96. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181f9a60a.

PMID:
20975594
13.

[Clinical study on lumbar spondylolisthesis treated by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion].

Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Ren XJ, Chu TW, Wang WD, Zheng WJ, Pan Y, Huang B.

Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2011 Dec;49(12):1076-80. Chinese.

PMID:
22333446
14.

Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study.

Seng C, Siddiqui MA, Wong KP, Zhang K, Yeo W, Tan SB, Yue WM.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Nov 1;38(23):2049-55. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a8212d.

PMID:
23963015
15.

Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of clinical outcomes among obese patients.

Terman SW, Yee TJ, Lau D, Khan AA, La Marca F, Park P.

J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jun;20(6):644-52. doi: 10.3171/2014.2.SPINE13794. Epub 2014 Apr 18.

PMID:
24745355
16.

Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases.

Lee JC, Jang HD, Shin BJ.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Aug 15;37(18):1548-57. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318252d44b.

PMID:
22426447
17.

[Surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar instability by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion].

Liang B, Yin G, Zhao J, Li N, Hu Z.

Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2011 Dec;25(12):1449-54. Chinese.

PMID:
22242343
18.

Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis.

Parker SL, Adogwa O, Witham TF, Aaronson OS, Cheng J, McGirt MJ.

Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2011 Feb;54(1):33-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1269904. Epub 2011 Apr 19. Review.

PMID:
21506066
19.

Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Wang HL, Lü FZ, Jiang JY, Ma X, Xia XL, Wang LX.

Chin Med J (Engl). 2011 Dec;124(23):3868-74.

PMID:
22340311
20.

Modeled cost-effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion compared with posterolateral fusion for spondylolisthesis using N(2)QOD data.

Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Ghogawala Z, Mummaneni PV, McGirt MJ, Asher AL.

J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Jun;24(6):916-21. doi: 10.3171/2015.10.SPINE15917. Epub 2016 Feb 19.

PMID:
26895529

Supplemental Content

Support Center