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

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. 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: 9560-565.10.3171/SPI.2008.9.0814219035748Search in Google Scholar

3. Djurasovic M, Bratcher KR, Glassman SD.The Effect of Obesity on Clinical Outcomes After Lumbar Fusion. Spine 2008; 16: 1789-1792.10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817b8f6f18628712Search in Google Scholar

4. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion. Spine 28:S26-S35, 2003.10.1097/01.BRS.0000076895.52418.5E12897471Search in Google Scholar

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; 127-156.10.1097/BSD.0b013e31819fdd9f20072033Search in Google Scholar

6. Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y.Spinal changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine 1999;24:1023-8.10.1097/00007632-199905150-0001710332796Search in Google Scholar

7. German JW, Foley KT. Minimal Access Surgical Techniques in the Management of the Painful Lumbar Motion Segment. Spine 2005; 30:S52-S59.10.1097/01.brs.0000174501.53285.9d16103834Search in Google Scholar

8. Haruštiak S.Princípy chirurgie II, 1 vydanie Bratislava, SAP 2010; s.270-290 review.Search in Google Scholar

9. Kahanovitz N, Viola K, Gallagher M. Long-term strength assessment of postoperative discectomy patients. Spine 1989;14:402-3.10.1097/00007632-198904000-000102718043Search in Google Scholar

10. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbarspine surgery: a histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine 1996;21:941-4.10.1097/00007632-199604150-000078726197Search in Google Scholar

11. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery: 2. Histologic and histochemical analyses in humans. Spine1994;19:2598-602.10.1097/00007632-199411001-000187855687Search in Google Scholar

12. Mayer TG, Vanharanta H, Gatchel RJ. Comparison of CT scan muscle measurements and isokinetic trunk strength in postoperative patients. Spine. 1989;14:33-36.10.1097/00007632-198901000-000062913665Search in Google Scholar

13. O’Toole JE, Eichholz KM,Fessler RG; Surgical site infection rates after minimally invasive spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2009, 11:471-476.10.3171/2009.5.SPINE0863319929344Search in Google Scholar

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):E16.10.3171/FOC/2008/25/8/E1618673045Search in Google Scholar

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;32:537-543.10.1097/01.brs.0000256473.49791.f417334287Search in Google Scholar

16. Patel N, Bagan B, Vadera S.Obesity and spine surgery: relation to perioperative complications. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007; 6: 291-297.10.3171/spi.2007.6.4.117436915Search in Google Scholar

17. Rantanen J, Hurme M, Falck B. The lumbar multifidus muscle five years after surgery for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine 1993;18:568-74.10.1097/00007632-199304000-000088484147Search in Google Scholar

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-213.10.1227/01.NEU.0000255388.03088.B717415155Search in Google Scholar

19. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E.Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 2008.10.1007/s00264-008-0687-8289919419023571Search in Google Scholar

20. Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP.Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF). Spinal Disord Tech 2005; 18:S1-S6.10.1097/01.bsd.0000132291.50455.d015699793Search in Google Scholar

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;67:1600-1608.10.1227/NEU.0b013e3181f9169721107190Search in Google Scholar

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. 10.1097/01.bsd.0000185277.14484.4e16760781Search in Google Scholar