Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: Comparison of two techniques

Chirurgia (Romania)

Volumn 109, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 812-821

  Tender, Gabriel C ^a   Serban D ^b  

^a LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Bagdasar Arseni Emergency Hospital   (Romania)

Author keywords

Minimally invasive; Percutaneous pedicle screws; TLIF; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920458748     PISSN: 12219118     EISSN: 1842368X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurgical focus. 2006;20(3): E6
2. Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. European spine journal: official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society. 2012;21(11):2265-70
3. Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Sudo H, Abe Y, Minami A. Mid-term clinical results of minimally invasive decompression and posterolateral fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws versus conventional approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. European spine journal: official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society. 2012;21(6):1171-7
4. Kim JS, Jung B, Lee SH. Instrumented Minimally Invasive spinal-Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF); Minimum 5-years Follow-up With Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes. Journal of spinal disorders & techniques. Sep 28 2012
5. Lee P, Fessler RG. Perioperative and postoperative complications of single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in elderly adults. Journal of clinical neuroscience: official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia. 2012; 19(1):111-4
6. Shih P, Wong AP, Smith TR, Lee AI, Fessler RG. Complications of open compared to minimally invasive lumbar spine decompression. Journal of clinical neuroscience: official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia. 2011;18(10):1360-4
7. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Witham TF, Aaronson OS, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis. Minimally invasive neurosurgery: MIN. 2011;54(1):33-7
8. Wang MY, Lerner J, Lesko J, McGirt MJ. Acute hospital costs after minimally invasive versus open lumbar interbody fusion: data from a US national database with 6106 patients. Journal of spinal disorders & techniques. 2012;25(6):324-8
9. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Costeffectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years. World neurosurgery. 2012;78(1-2):178-84
10. Smith ZA, Fessler RG. Paradigm changes in spine surgery: Evolution of minimally invasive techniques. Nature reviews. Neurology. 2012;8(8):443-50.