Volume 3, Issue 2 (9-2017)                   Iran J Neurosurg 2017, 3(2): 39-50 | Back to browse issues page


XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Tannoury T, haddadi K, Kempegowda H, Kadam A, Tannoury C. Role of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in Adults with Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis: A Narrative Review. Iran J Neurosurg. 2017; 3 (2) :39-50
URL: http://irjns.org/article-1-105-en.html
1- Director of Spine Fellowship Program, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA-02118, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA-02118
2- Spine Fellowship Scholar of Boston University Medical Center. Orthopedic Research Center, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran , kh568hd@yahoo.com
3- Department of Orthopedics, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA-02118, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA-02118
4- Director of Spine Research, Director of Orthopedic Ambulatory Clinic, Co-Director of Spine Fellowship Program, Boston, MA 02118, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA-02118
Abstract:   (1644 Views)
Background and Aim: Degenerative lumbar scoliosis is a spinal deformity resulting from advanced disc degeneration and facet arthropathy. Given the inconclusive available literature and lack of high-quality data supporting the role of minimally invasive surgical management of degenerative lumbar scoliosis, this review intends to highlight and compare the various viable minimally invasive surgical methods for adult degenerative deformity correction.

Methods and Materials/Patients: Online databases search including Medline, PubMed and Ovid was preformed using the keywords: adult, degenerative, lumbar scoliosis, etiology, clinical issues, diagnostic imaging, spinopelvic alignment, non-operative and surgical treatment options, minimally invasive, interbody fusion, and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. Eighty-three studies, published after 2000, on degenerative lumbar scoliosis epidemiology, classification and management were identified and reviewed.

Results: Minimally invasive surgical techniques available for interbody fusion include posterior lumbar interbody fusion, transformational lumbar interbody fusion, oblique lumbar interbody fusion, anterior lumbar interbody fusion, and extreme lateral interbody fusion. Each surgical option warrants technical considerations, indication, complications awareness, and functional and radiological outcomes assessment. Sound patients’ selection is key for improved outcomes, and therefore the following factors should be well examined prior to surgical intervention: the patient’s medical condition and underlying morbidities, the extent of the involved disc spaces, imaging characteristics, and surgeon skills.

Conclusion: The superiority of one surgical technique over the others, was not proven due to lack of strong and supportive data. However, a comprehensive review of indications, benefits, and disadvantages of the minimally invasive surgical procedures is presented. There is an interest in minimally invasive surgery of the spine owing to lower complication rates and morbidity, with limited soft tissue disturbance, decreased blood loss, improved cosmesis, shorter hospital stay, earlier return to work, and therefore decreased general health care costs.
Full Text [PDF 810 kb]   (518 Downloads) |   |   Full Text (HTML)  (27 Views)  
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Spine
* Corresponding Author Address: Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran

References
1. Adam S. Kanter M, Ashok R., Asthagiri, Christopher I, Shaffrey. Aging Spine: Challenges and Emerging Techniques. Clinical Neurosurgery .2007;54:10–18.
2. Anasetti F, Galbusera F, Aziz HN, Bellini CM, Addis A, Villa T. et. Al. Spine stability after implantation of an interspinous device: an in vitro and finite element biomechanical study. J Neurosurg Spine .2010;13(5):568–75. [DOI:10.3171/2010.6.SPINE09885]
3. Aebi M. The adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J .2005;14(10):925–48. [DOI:10.1007/s00586-005-1053-9]
4. Liu W, Chen XS, Jia LS, Song DW. The clinical features and surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis: a review of 112 patients. Orthop Surg .2009;1:176–183. [DOI:10.1111/j.1757-7861.2009.00030.x]
5. Ploumis A, Transfeldt EE, Gilbert TJ Jr, Mehbod AA, Dykes DC, Perra JE. Degenerative lumbar scoliosis: radiographic correlation of lateral rotatory olisthesis with neural canal dimensions. Spine. 2006;31:2353–2358. [DOI:10.1097/01.brs.0000240206.00747.cb] [PMID]
6. Kelleher MO, Timlin M, Persaud O, Rampersaud YR. Success and failure of minimally invasive decompression for focal lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with and without deformity. Spine. 2010;35:E981–E987. [DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c46fb4] [PMID]
7. Matsumura A, Namikawa T, Terai H, Tsujio T, Suzuki A, Dozono S, et al. The influence of approach side on facet preservation in microscopic bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13:758– 765. [DOI:10.3171/2010.5.SPINE091001] [PMID]
8. Yamada K, Matsuda H, Nabeta M, Habunaga H, Suzuki A, Nakamura H. Clinical outcomes of microscopic decompression for degenerative lumbar foraminal stenosis: a comparison between patients with and without degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2011;20:947– 953. [DOI:10.1007/s00586-010-1597-1] [PMID] [PMCID]
9. Cho KJ, Suk SI, Park SR, Kim JH, Kim SS, Choi WK, et al: Complications in posterior fusion and instrumentation for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Spine. 2007;32:2232–2237. [DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31814b2d3c] [PMID]
10. Schwab F, Farcy JP, Bridwell K, Berven S, Glassman S, Harrast J, et al: A clinical impact classification of scoliosis in the adult. Spine. 2006;31:2109–2114. [DOI:10.1097/01.brs.0000231725.38943.ab]
11. Ali RM, Boachie-Adjei O, Rawlins BA: Functional and radiographic outcomes after surgery for adult scoliosis using third-generation instrumentation techniques. Spine. 2003;28:1163–1170. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200306010-00015 [DOI:10.1097/01.BRS.0000067267.04011.91]
12. Bess RS, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Cheh G, Mandel S, Sides B: Comparison of thoracic pedicle screw to hook instrumentation for the treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine. 2007;32:555–561. [DOI:10.1097/01.brs.0000256445.31653.0e]
13. Cho KJ, Suk SI, Park SR, Kim JH, Kang SB, Kim HS, et al: Risk factors of sagittal decompensation after long posterior instrumentation and fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Spine. 2010;35:1595–1601. [DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bdad89]
14. DeWald CJ, Stanley T: Instrumentation-related complications of multilevel fusions for adult spinal deformity patients over age 65: surgical considerations and treatment options in patients with poor bone quality. Spine. 2006;31(19):S144–S151. [DOI:10.1097/01.brs.0000236893.65878.39]
15. Isaacs RE, Hyde J, Goodrich JA, Rodgers WB, Phillips FM. A prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter evaluation of extreme lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis: perioperative outcomes and complications. Spine. 2010;35(26 Suppl):S322–S330. [DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182022e04]
16. Khan SN, Hofer MA, Gupta MC: Lumbar degenerative scoliosis: outcomes of combined anterior and posterior pelvis surgery with minimum 2-year follow-up. Orthopedics. 2009;32(4):258.
17. Peelle MW, Boachie-Adjei O, Charles G, Kanazawa Y, Mesfin A: Lumbar curve response to selective thoracic fusion in adult idiopathic scoliosis. Spine J. 2008;8:897–903. [DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.010]
18. Wang MY, Mummaneni PV: Minimally invasive surgery for thoracolumbar spinal deformity: initial clinical experience with clinical and radiographic outcomes. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(3):E9. [DOI:10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS09286] [PMID]
19. Zhang H, Gao Q, Wang Y, Liu S, Guo C, Tang M, et al: Clinical evaluation of indirect decompression treatments for degenerative adult idiopathic scoliosis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131:1639–1647. [DOI:10.1007/s00402-011-1377-3] [PMID]
20. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, et al. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MITLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg .2015;1:2-18. [PMID] [PMCID]
21. Deutsch H, Musacchio MJ Jr. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Neurosurg Focus .2006;20:E10. [DOI:10.3171/foc.2006.20.3.11]
22. Youssef JA, Hamlin LF. Adult spinal deformity. In: Lieberman JR, ed. Orthopaedic Board Review Manual. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2009;721–726.
23. Gupta MC. Degenerative scoliosis. Options for surgical management. Orthop Clin North Am .2003;34:269–279. [DOI:10.1016/S0030-5898(03)00029-4]
24. Lestini WF, Fulghum JS, Whitehurst LA. Lumbar spinal fusion: advantages of posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Technol Int. 1994;3:577-90. [PMID]
25. Cole CD, McCall TD, Schmidt MH, et al. Comparison of low back fusion techniques: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approaches. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2009;2:118-26. [DOI:10.1007/s12178-009-9053-8] [PMID] [PMCID]
26. Ailon T, Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, et al. Degenerative Spinal Deformity. Neurosurgery. 2015;77 (Suppl 4): S75-91. Neurosurgery. 2011;69:1181–1187.
27. Waddell B, Briski D, Qadir R, et al. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion for the correction of spondylolisthesis and adult degenerative scoliosis in high-risk patients: early radiographic results and complications. Ochsner J .2014;14:23-31. [PMID] [PMCID]
28. Crawford CH, Glassman SD. Fusing adult degenerative deformities of the lumbar spine. Semin Spine Surg. 2011;23:222–226. [DOI:10.1053/j.semss.2011.05.002]
29. Tormenti MJ, Maserati MB, Bonfield CM, Okonkwo DO, Kanter AS. Complications and radiographic correction in adult scoliosis following combined transpsoas extreme lateral interbody fusion and posterior pedicle screw instrumentation. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28:E7–E13. [DOI:10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS09263]
30. Lotfinia I,Haddadi K,Sayyahmelli S.computed tomographic evaluatin of pedicle dimension and lumbar spinal canal.neurosurgery quaterly. 2010;20(3):194-198.158.
31. Ahmad Ghasemi, Kaveh Haddadi, Mohammad Khoshakhlagh, and Hamid Reza Ganjeh. The Relation between Sacral Angle and Vertical Angle of Sacral Curvature and Lumbar Disc Degeneration. Medicine. 2016; 95(6):2746. [DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000002746]
32. Fu KM, Rhagavan P, Shaffrey CI, Chernavvsky DR, Smith JS. Prevalence, severity, and impact of foraminal and canal stenosis among adults with degenerative scoliosis. Neurosurgery. 2011;69:1181–1187. [DOI:10.1227/NEU.0b013e31822a9aeb]
33. Mendoza-Lattes S, Ries Z, Gao Y, Weinstein SL. Natural history of spinopelvic alignment differs from symptomatic deformity of the spine. Spine. 2010;35:E792–E798. [DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d35ca9] [PMID]
34. Patel AA, Daubs M. Spinal-pelvic relationships: implications for spine surgery. SpineLine. 2010;11(2):18–21. [DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b79169] [PMID]
35. Ahmad Ghasemi, Kaveh Haddadi, and Ali Ahmadi Shad. Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI With and Without Contrast in Diagnosis of Traumatic Spinal Cord Injuries. Medicine. 2015;94(43):1942. [DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000001942] [PMID]
36. Lafage V, Schwab F, Vira S, Patel A, Ungar B, Farcy JP. Spino-pelvic parameters after surgery can be predicted: a preliminary formula and validation of standing alignment. Spine. 2011;36:1037–1045. [DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181eb9469] [PMID]
37. Silva FE, Lenke LG. Adult degenerative scoliosis: evaluation and management. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28: E1–E10. [DOI:10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS09271] [PMID]
38. Sirola J, Rikkonen T, Tuppurainen M, Honkanen R, Kröger H. Should risk of bone fragility restrict weight control for other health reasons in postmenopausal women? A ten-year prospective study Maturitas. 2012;71:162–168. [DOI:10.1016/j.maturitas.2011.11.020] [PMID]
39. Russo A, Bransford R, Wagner T, Lee MJ, Chapman JR. Adult degenerative scoliosis insights, challenges, and treatment outlook. Curr Orthop Pract. 2008;19:357–365. [DOI:10.1097/BCO.0b013e3282fb7c7a]
40. Avraam Ploumis, Ensor E. Transfledt, Francis Denis. Degenerative lumbar scoliosis associated with spinal stenosis. The Spine Journal. 2007;7(4):428–36. [DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2006.07.015] [PMID]
41. Schwab F, el-Fegoun AB, Gamez L, Goodman H, Farcy JP. A lumbar classifcation of scoliosis in the adult patient: preliminary approach. Spine. 2005;30(14):1670–1673. [DOI:10.1097/01.brs.0000170293.81234.f0] [PMID]
42. Oskouian RJ Jr, Shaffrey CI. Degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2006;17(3):299–315. [DOI:10.1016/j.nec.2006.05.002] [PMID]
43. Kaveh Haddadi, Leila Asadian and Ahdie Isazade. Effects of Nasal Calcitonin vs. Oral Gabapentin on Pain and Symptoms of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Clinical Trial Study. Clinical Medicine Insights: Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2016:9;133. [DOI:10.4137/CMAMD.S39938] [PMID]
44. Tribus CB. Degenerative lumbar scoliosis: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003;11(3):174–83. [DOI:10.5435/00124635-200305000-00004] [PMID]
45. Kaveh Haddadi, Hamid Reza Ganjeh Qazvini. Outcome after surgery of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of bilateral laminotomy, Trumpet laminectomy, and conventional laminectomy Frontiers in Surgery. 2016; 31(4):E6.
46. Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, Ratliff JK, Harrop JS: Adult scoliosis surgery outcomes: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(3):E3. [DOI:10.3171/2009.12.FOCUS09254] [PMID]
47. Matsumura A, Namikawa T, Terai H, et al. The influence of approach side on facet preservation in microscopic bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13:758–765. [DOI:10.3171/2010.5.SPINE091001] [PMID]
48. ransfeldt EE, Topp R, Mehbod AA, Winter RB. Surgical outcomes of decompression, decompression with limited fusion, and decompression with full curve fusion for degenerative scoliosis with radiculopathy. Spine 2010; 35:1872–1875. [DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ce63a2] [PMID]
49. Vaccaro AR, Ball ST: Indications for instrumentation in degenerative lumbar spinal disorders. Orthopedics. 2000; 23:260–271. [PMID]
50. Majd ME, Castro FP Jr, Holt RT. Anterior fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2000;25:696–702. [DOI:10.1097/00007632-200003150-00008] [PMID]
51. Simmons ED. Surgical treatment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with associated scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;384:45–53. [DOI:10.1097/00003086-200103000-00007]
52. Than KD, Wang AC, Rahman SU, et al. Complication avoidance and management in anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus. 2011;31(4):E6. [DOI:10.3171/2011.7.FOCUS11141] [PMID]
53. Guyer RD, Fulp T. Perirectus retroperitoneal approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. In: Zdeblick TA, ed. Anterior Approaches to the Spine. St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical Publishing, Inc. 1999:203–216.
54. Zdeblick TA. Mini-ALIF with cages. In: Bradford DS, Zdeblick TA, eds. Master Techniques in Orthopaedic Surgery: The Spine, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004:321–333.
55. Sengupta K. Adult spinal deformity. In: Rao RD, Smuck M, eds. Orthopaedic Knowledge Update: Spine, 4th ed. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2012:349–367.
56. Mundis GM, Akbarnia BA, Phillips FM. Adult deformity correction through minimally invasive lateral approach techniques. Spine. 2010;35(26, Suppl): S312–S321. [DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318202495f] [PMID]
57. Anand N, Baron EM, Thaiyananthan G, Khalsa K, Goldstein TB. Minimally invasive multilevel percutaneous correction and fusion for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis: a technique and feasibility study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008; 21:459–467. [DOI:10.1097/BSD.0b013e318167b06b] [PMID]
58. Good CR, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Can posterior only surgery provide similar radiographic and clinical results as combined anterior (thoracotomy/thoracoabdominal)/ posterior approaches for adult scoliosis? Spine. 2010; 35:210–218. [DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c91163] [PMID]
59. Wang MY. PLIF for the treatment of adult spinal deformity. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2011;153:557. [DOI:10.1007/s00701-010-0910-4] [PMID]
60. Resnick DK. Lumbar interbody fusion: current status. Contemporary Spine Surgery. 2009;10:1–6. [DOI:10.1097/01.CSS.0000342252.82034.5e]
61. Ming-Kai Hsieh, et al. Combined anterior lumbar interbody fusion and instrumented posterolateral fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis: indication and surgical outcomes. BMC Surgery. 2015;15:26. [DOI:10.1186/s12893-015-0006-4] [PMID] [PMCID]
62. Rao PJ, Ghent F, Phan K, et al. Stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22:1619-2. [DOI:10.1016/j.jocn.2015.03.034] [PMID]
63. Malham GM, Parker RM, Goss B, et al. Clinical results and limitations of indirect decompression in spinal stenosis with laterally implanted interbody cages: results from a prospective cohort study. Eur Spine J. 2015;24 Suppl 3:339-45. [DOI:10.1007/s00586-015-3807-3] [PMID]
64. Zhu Y, Liu HY, Wang B, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of selective segmental transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior spinal fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2013;93:3577- 81. [PMID]
65. Manwaring JC, Bach K, Ahmadian AA, et al. Management of sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity with minimally invasive anterolateral lumbar interbody fusion: a preliminary radiographic study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20:515-22. [DOI:10.3171/2014.2.SPINE1347] [PMID]
66. Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, et al. Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 7: intractable lowback pain without stenosis or spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;2:670-2. [DOI:10.3171/spi.2005.2.6.0670] [PMID]
67. Eck JC, Hodges S, Humphreys SC. Minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15:321-9. [DOI:10.5435/00124635-200706000-00001] [PMID]
68. Mobbs RJ, Sivabalan P, Li J. Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies. J Clin Neurosci. 2012;19:829-35. [DOI:10.1016/j.jocn.2011.10.004] [PMID]
69. Phan K, Rao PJ, Scherman DB, et al. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion for sagittal balance correction and spinal deformity. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22:1714-21. [DOI:10.1016/j.jocn.2015.03.050] [PMID]
70. Briggs H, Milligan PR. Chip fusion of the low back following exploration of the spinal canal. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1944;26:125-30.
71. Harms J, Rolinger H. A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1982;120:343-7. [DOI:10.1055/s-2008-1051624] [PMID]
72. Cole CD, McCall TD, Schmidt MH, et al. Comparison of low back fusion techniques: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approaches. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2009;2:118-26. [DOI:10.1007/s12178-009-9053-8] [PMID]
73. Fan SW, Hu ZJ, Fang XQ, et al. Comparison of paraspinal muscle injury in one-level lumbar posterior inter-body fusion: modified minimally invasive and traditional open approaches. Orthop Surg. 2010;2:194-200. [DOI:10.1111/j.1757-7861.2010.00086.x] [PMID]
74. Park J, Kim Y, Hong H, et al. Comparison between posterior and transforaminal approaches for lumbar interbody fusion. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2005;37:340-4.
75. Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, et al. Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine. 2001;26:567-71. [DOI:10.1097/00007632-200103010-00023] [PMID]
76. Zhang Q, Yuan Z, Zhou M, et al. A comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:367. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-15-367] [PMID]
77. Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O'Shaughnessy BA, et al. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7:379-86. [DOI:10.3171/SPI-07/10/379] [PMID]
78. Phan K, Thayaparan GK, Mobbs RJ. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Neurosurg. 2015;29(5):705-11. [DOI:10.3109/02688697.2015.1036838] [PMID]
79. Audat Z, Moutasem O, Yousef K, et al. Comparison of clinical and radiological results of posterolateral fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine. Singapore Med J. 2012;53:183-7. [PMID]
80. Sakeb N, Ahsan K. Comparison of the early results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in symptomatic lumbar instability. Indian J Orthop. 2013;47:255-63. [DOI:10.4103/0019-5413.111484] [PMID]
81. Rao PJ, Loganathan A, Yeung V, et al. Outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery based on indication: a prospective study. Neurosurgery 2015;76:7-23; discussion 23-4. [DOI:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000561] [PMID]
82. Malham GM, Parker RM, Ellis NJ, et al. Anterior lumbar

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA code

Send email to the article author


© 2019 All Rights Reserved | Iranian Journal of Neurosurgery

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb