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.
about
Economic impact of minimally invasive lumbar surgeryComparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic reviewMASTERS-D Study: A Prospective, Multicenter, Pragmatic, Observational, Data-Monitored Trial of Minimally Invasive Fusion to Treat Degenerative Lumbar Disorders, One-Year Follow-Up.A systematic literature review of time to return to work and narcotic use after lumbar spinal fusion using minimal invasive and open surgery techniques.Ambulatory spine surgery: a survey study.Bilateral neurological deficits following unilateral minimally invasive TLIF: A review of four patientsValidation and analysis of a multi-site MIS Prospective Registry through sub-analysis of an MIS TLIF SubgroupSurgeons' exposure to radiation in single- and multi-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; a prospective study.Surgical data and early postoperative outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion: results of a prospective, multicenter, observational data-monitored study.Single incision percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a perspective on current evidence and clinical knowledge.Perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: A systematic review.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.Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidenceComparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Meta-analysis.Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a modified distractor handle: a midterm clinicoradiological follow-up study.Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus open approach for one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the 3- to 4-year follow-up.Safety and Efficacy of Mini Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Minimally invasive procedures on the lumbar spine.Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review of complications.Predictors of Long Term Opioid Use following Lumbar Fusion Surgery.Minimally Invasive versus Open Spine Surgery: What Does the Best Evidence Tell Us?Performance evaluation of MIND demons deformable registration of MR and CT images in spinal interventions.Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis.Treatment for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Current Concepts and New Evidence.Minimally invasive versus open Transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusion in obese patients: a meta-analysis.Risk Factors for Pseudarthrosis in Minimally-Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody FusionTwo-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Surgical Technique and Illustrative Cases
P2860
Q26824183-7F92E8C3-7CCE-476F-B189-9496D95560F7Q27014738-FCD7730F-5BB4-41E9-A8FB-84C68943F1F3Q31115750-1088A4C7-5B36-4A35-B871-EA6F6F5B68B0Q33846241-B9A12C82-364C-4E55-A565-D8D93F1C7807Q33954021-6703B3E2-9263-4F7F-91F0-FEDA2C4A30D4Q34236146-D68AE1FA-DCC6-4D89-B513-20B8E1574146Q35076093-AA3A5EFE-14D5-416A-B063-C16826A70A2DQ35148929-66B2044F-E4CC-4C95-BB21-6DDBEF7B0791Q35219867-B62A082B-CE11-4489-8072-D3E08DA3E0E9Q35608303-14483B35-FE9D-43AA-8B19-C5157F44115AQ36167447-8F473D2A-082D-483C-9BBE-DDF984B43267Q36391404-9E9D4076-852C-4C62-AD28-F76E1E1567D1Q36460738-B13EA292-0CDB-4333-B1C0-1B0DD32AA24BQ37064395-422EC42E-7BF2-435B-82EE-7D7690C771B9Q37185461-B44D954D-5FD6-4A94-A810-F6BDCC60A47FQ37194845-5022E0A6-A044-42CA-876F-E4AC5194B32AQ37244265-17AEA88C-7D7B-4913-AB02-38754A378F16Q37350528-2B2AE47F-3E04-4C0D-8639-9DC10569F14DQ37606239-57A405BB-E1AE-4F3C-9ADE-62AF7904F583Q38328052-2C71A3C9-5BFB-4602-A816-26442FFA815AQ38778756-F8F151EC-2A5E-4EBE-BD22-9DE1DBBD482FQ38927393-23CAED41-6012-4D1B-9DB2-44A43F4DA588Q39155996-024FDB77-1DBA-40F5-B020-33B061F60409Q39218097-A32DBCD4-E9F3-446B-9728-728E91C27301Q42163016-433F45A3-AE3C-4E13-A7A3-0662450C4D09Q47096133-36E89F76-4D29-4DDC-8235-C4530DF72ACEQ47726872-218C1A14-9F4B-4794-AB60-FC5891162CE9Q58753768-21042D91-9976-416E-8E23-F965A56C31A2Q58992571-B5F5E030-1798-4673-95CF-2391DD88F0D5
P2860
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.
description
2011 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2011年の論文
@ja
2011年論文
@yue
2011年論文
@zh-hant
2011年論文
@zh-hk
2011年論文
@zh-mo
2011年論文
@zh-tw
2011年论文
@wuu
2011年论文
@zh
2011年论文
@zh-cn
name
Comparative effectiveness of m ...... sability, and quality of life.
@en
Comparative effectiveness of m ...... sability, and quality of life.
@nl
type
label
Comparative effectiveness of m ...... sability, and quality of life.
@en
Comparative effectiveness of m ...... sability, and quality of life.
@nl
prefLabel
Comparative effectiveness of m ...... sability, and quality of life.
@en
Comparative effectiveness of m ...... sability, and quality of life.
@nl
P2093
P1476
Comparative effectiveness of m ...... sability, and quality of life.
@en
P2093
Joseph Cheng
Matthew J McGirt
Owoicho Adogwa
Scott L Parker
P304
P356
10.1097/BSD.0B013E3182055CAC
P577
2011-12-01T00:00:00Z