 |
|
Real world adverse events of interspinous spacers using Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience data
Nitish Aggarwal, Robert Chow
Anesth Pain Med. 2021;16(2):177-183. Published online 2021 Apr 19 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17085/apm.20093
|
|
Citations to this article as recorded by
 Innovative technologies in thoracolumbar and lumbar spine surgery failing to reach standard of care: state-of-art review
Prerana Katiyar, Matan Malka, Justin L. Reyes, Joseph M. Lombardi, Lawrence G. Lenke, Zeeshan M. Sardar
Spine Deformity.2024;[Epub] CrossRef Association Between Device Type and Type IIIb Endoleaks Following Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair
E. Hope Weissler, Bradley G. Hammill, Jenna L. Armstrong, Andrew M. Vekstein, Parth Chodavadia, Chandler A. Long, Matthew Roe, G. Chad Hughes
European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery.2023; 65(1): 112. CrossRef Complications and radiographic changes after implantation of interspinous process devices: average eight-year follow-up
Kai-Yu Li, Hua-Lin Li, Lin-Jie Chen, Jian-Wei Xiang, Chen-Chao Li, Jun-Jie Weng, Nai-Feng Tian
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.2023;[Epub] CrossRef Adverse Events Associated With 10-kHz Dorsal Column Spinal Cord Stimulation
Ryan S. D’Souza, Oludare O. Olatoye, Casey S. Butler, Ross A. Barman, Zachary M. Ashmore, Jonathan M. Hagedorn
The Clinical Journal of Pain.2022; 38(5): 320. CrossRef Biomechanical comparison of different interspinous process devices in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a finite element analysis
Zhengpeng Liu, Shuyi Zhang, Jia Li, Hai Tang
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
|