Open Access
Volume 4, 2018
Article Number 24
Number of page(s) 8
Section Spine
Published online 29 June 2018
  1. Sengupta DK, Herkowitz HN (2005) Degenerative spondylolisthesis: review of current trends and controversies. Spine 30(6), S71–S81. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Hallett A, Huntley JS, Gibson JN (2007) Foraminal stenosis and single-level degenerative disc disease: a randomized controlled trial comparing decompression with decompression and instrumented fusion. Spine 32(13), 1375–1380. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Videbaek TS, Christensen FB, Soegaard R, Hansen ES, Hoy K, Helmig P, et al. (2006) Circumferential fusion improves outcome in comparison with instrumented posterolateral fusion: long-term results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine 31(25), 2875–2880. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ (2015) Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg (Hong Kong) 1(1), 2–18. [Google Scholar]
  5. Zhang Q, Yuan Z, Zhou M, Liu H, Xu Y, Ren Y (2014) A comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review and meta-analysis. BMC musculoskel disord 15, 367. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR (2006) Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J : Off J N Am Spine Soc 6(4), 435–443. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Burkus JK, Schuler TC, Gornet MF, Zdeblick TA (2004) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion for the management of chronic lower back pain: current strategies and concepts. Orthop Clin N Am 35(1), 25–32. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Harms J, Rolinger H (1982) A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb, 120(3), 343–347. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Matsumura A, Taneichi H, Suda K, Kajino T, Moridaira H, Kaneda K (2006) Comparative study of radiographic disc height changes using two different interbody devices for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: cage. Spine 31(23), E871–E876. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Abbushi A, Cabraja M, Thomale UW, Woiciechowsky C, Kroppenstedt SN (2009) The influence of cage positioning and cage type on cage migration and fusion rates in patients with monosegmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation. European Spine J: off publ European Spine Soc European Spinal Deformity Soc, European Section Cerv Spine Res Soc 18(11), 1621–1628. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Tan JS, Bailey CS, Dvorak MF, Fisher CG, Oxland TR (2005) Interbody device shape and size are important to strengthen the vertebra-implant interface. Spine 30(6), 638–644. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cappuccino A, Cornwall GB, Turner AW, Fogel GR, Duong HT, Kim KD, et al. (2010) Biomechanical analysis and review of lateral lumbar fusion constructs. Spine 35(26), S361–S367. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Lowe TG, Hashim S, Wilson LA, O'Brien MF, Smith DA, Diekmann MJ, et al. (2004) A biomechanical study of regional endplate strength and cage morphology as it relates to structural interbody support. Spine 29(21), 2389–2994. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Boutron I, Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF, Ravaud P (2017) For the CNPTG. Consort statement for randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatments: a 2017 update and a consort extension for nonpharmacologic trial. Ann Internal Med 167(1), 40–47. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Yang SW, Langrana NA, Lee CK (1986) Biomechanics of lumbosacral spinal fusion in combined compression-torsion loads. Spine 11(9), 937–941. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fukuta S, Miyamoto K, Hosoe H, Shimizu K (2011) Kidney-type intervertebral spacers should be located anteriorly in cantilever transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analyses of risk factors for spacer subsidence for a minimum of 2 years. J Spinal Disord Techn 24(3), 189–195. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Faizan A, Kiapour A, Kiapour AM, Goel VK (2014) Biomechanical analysis of various footprints of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion devices. J Spinal Disord Techn 27(4), E118–E127. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Closkey RF, Parsons JR, Lee CK, Blacksin MF, Zimmerman MC (1993) Mechanics of interbody spinal fusion. Analysis of critical bone graft area. Spine 18(8), 1011–1015. [Google Scholar]
  19. Rousseau MA, Lazennec JY, Saillant G (2007) Circumferential arthrodesis using PEEK cages at the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord & Techn 20(4), 278–281. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Vaidya R, Weir R, Sethi A, Meisterling S, Hakeos W, Wybo CD (2007) Interbody fusion with allograft and rhBMP-2 leads to consistent fusion but early subsidence. J Bone Jt Surg Br 89(3), 342–345. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Linzer P, Filip M, Jurek P, Salek T, Gajdos M, Jarkovsky J (2016) Comparison of biochemical response between the minimally invasive and lumbar interbody fusion. Neurologia i Neurochirurgia Polska 50(1), 16–23. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A (2002) Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine 27(11), 1131–1141. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Butler JAP, Schwartz A, Felt J (2010) Clinical performance evaluation of a modular interbody fusion device. SMISS 2010 Annual Conference; 2010 November 5–7; Miami, Florida, USA. [Google Scholar]
  24. Di Rita ALF, Ampollini A, Pirovano M, Portaluri F, Egidi M editor (2016) Unilateral pedicle screw fixation with the use of wide-surface modular interbody cages in degenerative lumbar spine disease. Neurosurgery: From the Classics to the future EANS 2016 September 4-8; Athens, Greece. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lavelle W, Tallarico R editor (2017) A Modular Large Footprint Interbody in Adult Spinal Deformity Patients. ISASS; 2017 April 12–14; Boca Raton, Florida, USA. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.