Expandable Cages Increase the Risk of Intraoperative Subsidence but Do Not Improve Perioperative Outcomes in Single Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.
暂无分享,去创建一个
A. Buckland | Christopher G. Varlotta | C. Maglaras | E. Balouch | Nicholas O’Malley | C. Leon | Erik Wang | Jordan H. Manning | T. Philipp | C. Stickley | Jack R. Zhong | Jack Zhong | Nicholas A. O'Malley
[1] Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez,et al. Retrospective Review of Immediate Restoration of Lordosis in Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of Static and Expandable Interbody Cages. , 2020, Operative neurosurgery.
[2] Kern Singh,et al. Static Versus Expandable Devices Provide Similar Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2019, HSS Journal ®.
[3] Christopher C. Gillis,et al. Clinical and Short-Term Radiographic Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Expandable Lordotic Devices. , 2019, Neurosurgery.
[4] M. Bydon,et al. Assessing the Difference in Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Expandable Cage and Nonexpandable Cage Among Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. , 2019, World neurosurgery.
[5] J. Buchowski,et al. Outcomes and cost-minimization analysis of cement spacers versus expandable cages for posterior-only reconstruction of metastatic spine corpectomies. , 2019, Annals of translational medicine.
[6] P. Passias,et al. Comparative Analysis of Two Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques: Open TLIF Versus Wiltse MIS TLIF , 2019, Spine.
[7] Arash J. Sayari,et al. Device solutions for a challenging spine surgery: minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) , 2019, Expert review of medical devices.
[8] J. Rawlinson,et al. Lordosis Recreation in Transforaminal and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Cadaveric Study of the Influence of Surgical Bone Resection and Cage Angle. , 2018, Spine.
[9] Howard Y. Park,et al. Does approach matter? A comparative radiographic analysis of spinopelvic parameters in single-level lumbar fusion. , 2018, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.
[10] A. Patwardhan,et al. Biomechanics of an Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Deployed Through Transforaminal Approach , 2018, International Journal of Spine Surgery.
[11] L. Schultz,et al. Assessment of radiographic and clinical outcomes of an articulating expandable interbody cage in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. , 2018, Neurosurgical focus.
[12] K. Rijkers,et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2017, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.
[13] K. Satake,et al. Cage subsidence in lateral interbody fusion with transpsoas approach: intraoperative endplate injury or late-onset settling , 2017, Spine surgery and related research.
[14] W. Z. Ray,et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable versus static interbody devices: radiographic assessment of sagittal segmental and pelvic parameters. , 2017, Neurosurgical focus.
[15] Jacob R. Joseph,et al. Expandable vs Static Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Radiographic Comparison of Segmental and Lumbar Sagittal Angles , 2017, Neurosurgery.
[16] Xin Fu,et al. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Expandable Technology: A Clinical and Radiographic Analysis of 50 Patients. , 2016, World neurosurgery.
[17] Alexander W. L. Turner,et al. MIS Expandable Interbody Spacers: A Literature Review and Biomechanical Comparison of an Expandable MIS TLIF With Conventional TLIF and ALIF , 2016, Spine.
[18] Jessica A. Tang,et al. Comparison of Expandable and Fixed Interbody Cages in a Human Cadaver Corpectomy Model: Fatigue Characteristics , 2012, Clinical spine surgery.
[19] K. Foley,et al. Surgical Outcomes for Minimally Invasive vs Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2015, Neurosurgery.
[20] R. Mobbs,et al. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. , 2015, Journal of spine surgery.
[21] R. Watkins,et al. Sagittal Alignment After Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparing Anterior, Lateral, and Transforaminal Approaches , 2014, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.
[22] W. Yue,et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion , 2011, European Spine Journal.
[23] A. Villavicencio,et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion , 2010, Surgical neurology international.
[24] Meic H. Schmidt,et al. Comparison of low back fusion techniques: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approaches , 2009, Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine.
[25] S. Oh,et al. A Multi-center Clinical Study of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with the Expandable Stand-alone Cage (Tyche(R) Cage) for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Disorders. , 2007, Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.