Outcome of Ti/PEEK Versus PEEK Cages in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] John H. Shin,et al. Polyetheretherketone Versus Titanium Cages for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature , 2020, Neurospine.
[2] Zeyan Liang,et al. Comparative Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Bone Morphogenetic Protein Versus Autologous Iliac Crest Bone Graft in Lumbar Fusion , 2020, Spine.
[3] L. Felli,et al. Fusion rate and influence of surgery-related factors in lumbar interbody arthrodesis for degenerative spine diseases: a meta-analysis and systematic review , 2020, MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY.
[4] Samuel K. Cho,et al. Biomaterials in Spinal Implants: A Review , 2019, Neurospine.
[5] Nader S. Dahdaleh,et al. A Systematic Review of Complications Following Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Including Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2019, Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine.
[6] Ming-Chau Chang,et al. Differences in the interbody bone graft area and fusion rate between minimally invasive and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective short-term image analysis , 2019, European Spine Journal.
[7] Kern Singh,et al. Interbody options in lumbar fusion. , 2019, Journal of spine surgery.
[8] P. Passias,et al. Comparative Analysis of Two Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques: Open TLIF Versus Wiltse MIS TLIF , 2019, Spine.
[9] A. Schoenfeld,et al. Critical analysis of trends in lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders revisited: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcomes , 2018, European Spine Journal.
[10] J. P. Price,et al. Clinical and Radiologic Comparison of Minimally Invasive Surgery With Traditional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of 452 Patients From a Single Center , 2018, Clinical spine surgery.
[11] Michael J Lee,et al. Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Traditional Open Versus Minimally Invasive Techniques. , 2018, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
[12] Nianli Zhang,et al. Evaluation of a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) titanium composite interbody spacer in an ovine lumbar interbody fusion model: biomechanical, microcomputed tomographic, and histologic analyses. , 2017, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.
[13] Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez,et al. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-analysis of the Fusion Rates. What is the Optimal Graft Material? , 2017, Neurosurgery.
[14] J. Torner,et al. Titanium vs. polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion: Meta-analysis and review of the literature , 2017, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.
[15] P. Robertson,et al. Do position and size matter? An analysis of cage and placement variables for optimum lordosis in PLIF reconstruction , 2017, European Spine Journal.
[16] W. Walsh,et al. Combination Ti/PEEK ALIF cage for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: Early clinical and radiological results , 2016, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.
[17] F. Cammisa,et al. Optimizing surface characteristics for cell adhesion and proliferation on titanium plasma spray coatings on polyetheretherketone. , 2016, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.
[18] Alan H. Daniels,et al. Advances in Spinal Interbody Cages , 2016, Orthopaedic surgery.
[19] R. Mobbs,et al. Evolution of Design of Interbody Cages for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2016, Orthopaedic surgery.
[20] W. Walsh,et al. Titanium/Polyetheretherketone Cages for Cervical Arthrodesis with Degenerative and Traumatic Pathologies: Early Clinical Outcomes and Fusion Rates , 2016, Orthopaedic surgery.
[21] W. Walsh,et al. Radiological and clinical outcomes of novel Ti/PEEK combined spinal fusion cages: a systematic review and preclinical evaluation , 2017, European Spine Journal.
[22] W. Walsh,et al. The design evolution of interbody cages in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review , 2015, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.
[23] B. Boyan,et al. Implant Materials Generate Different Peri-implant Inflammatory Factors , 2015, Spine.
[24] B. Boyan,et al. Implant osseointegration and the role of microroughness and nanostructures: lessons for spine implants. , 2014, Acta biomaterialia.
[25] K. Satake,et al. Volumetric change in interbody bone graft after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): a prospective study , 2014, European Spine Journal.
[26] W. Walsh,et al. Spine Interbody Implants: Material Selection and Modification, Functionalization and Bioactivation of Surfaces to Improve Osseointegration , 2014, Orthopaedic surgery.
[27] Moon-Chan Kim,et al. Subsidence of Polyetheretherketone Cage After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2013, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.
[28] P. Ullrich,et al. Osteoblasts exhibit a more differentiated phenotype and increased bone morphogenetic protein production on titanium alloy substrates than on poly-ether-ether-ketone. , 2012, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.
[29] Hye Soo Lee,et al. Fusion rates of a morselized local bone graft in polyetheretherketone cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion by quantitative analysis using consecutive three-dimensional computed tomography scans. , 2011, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.
[30] J. Ha,et al. The effect of a radiographic solid fusion on clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. , 2011, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.
[31] A. Neidre,et al. Fusion assessment of posterior lumbar interbody fusion using radiolucent cages: X-ray films and helical computed tomography scans compared with surgical exploration of fusion. , 2008, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.
[32] Viola Bullmann,et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results , 2005, European Spine Journal.