Literature DB >> 15589424

Minimal access spinal technologies: state-of-the-art, indications, and techniques.

Richard Assaker1.   

Abstract

Minimal access spinal technologies aim primarily at minimizing the trauma associated with surgical exposure of the spine. They owe their existence mainly to recent progress in optical and imaging devices and to the development of instrumentations specifically designed for insertion via minimally invasive approaches. No published scientific studies have proved that minimally invasive techniques are superior over standard techniques. However, patients benefit from the decreased postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay, and expedited return to normal activities. Finally, minimal access spinal technologies are evolving at a fast pace. Progress is being made in defining the indications, and assessable results have been obtained for a number of lesions. This article describes the main techniques and highlights the beneficial effects on patient comfort.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15589424     DOI: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2004.08.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Joint Bone Spine        ISSN: 1297-319X            Impact factor:   4.929


  25 in total

1.  Pure percutaneous pedicle screw fixation without arthrodesis of 32 thoraco-lumbar fractures: clinical and radiological outcome with 36-month follow-up.

Authors:  Marco Cimatti; Stefano Forcato; Filippo Polli; Massimo Miscusi; Alessandro Frati; Antonino Raco
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  [Does experimental surgery still exist?].

Authors:  B Vollmar; M D Menger
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 0.955

3.  Minimally invasive versus open surgery for cervical and lumbar discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nathan Evaniew; Moin Khan; Brian Drew; Desmond Kwok; Mohit Bhandari; Michelle Ghert
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2014-10-01

Review 4.  Minimally invasive procedures on the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Branko Skovrlj; Jeffrey Gilligan; Holt S Cutler; Sheeraz A Qureshi
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2015-01-16       Impact factor: 1.337

Review 5.  Cost-utility of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: systematic review and economic evaluation.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Jarred A Hogan; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Does the hip positioning matter for oblique lumbar interbody fusion approach? A morphometric study.

Authors:  Kaissar Farah; Henri-Arthur Leroy; Melodie-Anne Karnoub; Louis Obled; Stephane Fuentes; Richard Assaker
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Percutaneous versus traditional and paraspinal posterior open approaches for treatment of thoracolumbar fractures without neurologic deficit: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xiang-Yao Sun; Xi-Nuo Zhang; Yong Hai
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Indications for the monosegmental stabilization of thoraco-lumbar spine fractures.

Authors:  Giovanni Andrea La Maida; Carlo Ruosi; Bernardo Misaggi
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-11-14       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 9.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Prashanth J Rao; Andrew C Kam; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Effect of the percutaneous pedicle screw fixation at the fractured vertebra on the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures.

Authors:  Kunpeng Li; Zhong Li; Xiaofeng Ren; Hui Xu; Wen Zhang; Dawei Luo; Jinzhu Ma
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-03-17       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.