Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Minimal Access Spinal Technologies (Mast) Fusion Procedures For The Treatment Of The Degenerative Lumbar Spine (A Part Of Multicentral Prospective Study) Cover

Minimal Access Spinal Technologies (Mast) Fusion Procedures For The Treatment Of The Degenerative Lumbar Spine (A Part Of Multicentral Prospective Study)

Acta Medica Martiniana
Volume 14 (2014): Issue 1 (May 2014)
By: ,   and    
Open Access
|May 2014
References

References

  1. 1. Bagan B, Patel N, Deutsch H. Perioperative complications of minimally invasive surgery (MIS): comparison of MIS and open interbody fusion techniques.Surg Technol Int. 2008; 17:281-286.
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. 2. Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV; Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term followup. J Neurosurg Spine 2008: 9560-565.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  3. 3. Djurasovic M, Bratcher KR, Glassman SD.The Effect of Obesity on Clinical Outcomes After Lumbar Fusion. Spine 2008; 16: 1789-1792.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  4. 4. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion. Spine 28:S26-S35, 2003.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  5. 5. Gavaskar AS, Achimuthu R. Transfacetal fusion for low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis of the lumbar spine: results of a prospective single center study. J Spinal Disord Tech., 2010; 127-156.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  6. 6. Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y.Spinal changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine 1999;24:1023-8.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  7. 7. German JW, Foley KT. Minimal Access Surgical Techniques in the Management of the Painful Lumbar Motion Segment. Spine 2005; 30:S52-S59.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  8. 8. Haruštiak S.Princípy chirurgie II, 1 vydanie Bratislava, SAP 2010; s.270-290 review.
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. 9. Kahanovitz N, Viola K, Gallagher M. Long-term strength assessment of postoperative discectomy patients. Spine 1989;14:402-3.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  10. 10. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbarspine surgery: a histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine 1996;21:941-4.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  11. 11. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery: 2. Histologic and histochemical analyses in humans. Spine1994;19:2598-602.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  12. 12. Mayer TG, Vanharanta H, Gatchel RJ. Comparison of CT scan muscle measurements and isokinetic trunk strength in postoperative patients. Spine. 1989;14:33-36.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  13. 13. O’Toole JE, Eichholz KM,Fessler RG; Surgical site infection rates after minimally invasive spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2009, 11:471-476.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  14. 14. Park P, Foley KT; Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with reduction of the spondylolisthesis: technique and outcomes after a minimum of 2 years’ follow-up. Neurosurg Focus 2008; 25 (2):E16.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  15. 15. Park Y, Ha JW. Comparison of One-Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Performed With a Minimally Invasive Approach or a Traditional Open Approach. Spine 2007;32:537-543.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  16. 16. Patel N, Bagan B, Vadera S.Obesity and spine surgery: relation to perioperative complications. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007; 6: 291-297.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  17. 17. Rantanen J, Hurme M, Falck B. The lumbar multifidus muscle five years after surgery for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine 1993;18:568-74.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  18. 18. Scheufler, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI. Percutaneous. Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Instability. Neurosurgery 2007;60(ONS Suppl 2):ONS-203-ONS-213.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  19. 19. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E.Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 2008.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  20. 20. Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP.Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF). Spinal Disord Tech 2005; 18:S1-S6.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  21. 21. Seok JB, Sang-Ho Lee, Jin-Sung Kim, Byungjoo Jung, Gun Choi.Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneus pedicle fixation for adult low grade isthmic spondylolisthesis: minimum 3 y FU, j.neurosurgery 2010;67:1600-1608.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  22. 22. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Bulsara KR et al; Perioperative Complications in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Anterior-Posterior Reconstruction for Lumbar Disc Degeneration and Instability. J Spinal Disord 2006; 19: 92-97.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/acm-2014-0005 | Journal eISSN: 1338-4139 (formerly 1335-8421) | Journal ISSN: 1335-8421
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 33 - 39
Submitted on: Apr 4, 2014
Accepted on: Apr 30, 2014
Published on: May 30, 2014
Published by: Sciendo
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 3 issues per year
Keywords:
Degenerative disc disease,
minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion,
transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
Related subjects:
Medicine,
Clinical medicine,
Internal medicine,
Cardiology

© 2014 A.H. Khoshab, P. Dumy, B. Kolarovszkl, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 14 (2014): Issue 1 (May 2014)
Previous article