1Beutler KJ, Freddrlckson BE, Murtland A, et al. The natural history of spondylolysis and spondylolishesis: 45 - year follow - up evalua-tion. Spine, 2003, 28 (10):1027-1035.
3Cavalier R, Herman MJ, Cheung EV. Spondylolysis and spondylolis- thesis in children andadolescents: I. Diagnosis, natural history, and nonsurgical management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 2006, 14 (7): 417 -424.
4Lundin DA, Wiseman D, E11enbogen RG, et al. Direct repair of the pars interarticularis for spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. Pediatr Neurosurg, 2003, 39 (4): 195 -200.
5Ivanic GM, Pink TP, Achatz W, et al. Direct stabilization of lumbar spondylolysis with a hook screw : mean 11 - year follow - up period for 113 patients. Spine, 2003, 28 (3):255-259.
6Ekman P, Moller H, Shalabi A, et al. A prospective randomised study on the long - term effect of lumbar fusion on adjacent disc de- generation. Eur Spine J, 2009, 18 (8) : 1175 - 1186.
7Sairyo K, Sakai T, Yasui N. Minimally invasive technique for direct repair of pars interarticularis defects in adults using a percutaneous pedicle screw and hook- rod system. J Neurosurg Spine, 2009, 10 (5) : 492 - 495.
8Noggle JC, Sciubba DM, Samdani AF, et al. Minimally invasive di- rect repair of lumbar spondylolysis with a pedicle screw and hook con- struct. Neurosurg Focus, 2008, 25 (2) : E15.
9Sairyo K, Goel VK, Masuda A, et al. Biomechanical rationale of endoscopic decompression for lumbar spondylolysis as an effective minimally invasive procedure - a study based on the finite element analysis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg, 2005, 48 (2) : 119 - 122.
1Bridwell KH, Sedgewick TA, O'Brien MF, et al. The role of fusion and instrumentation in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord, 1993, 6: 461-472.
2Zdeblick TA. A prospective, randomized study of lumbar fusion: preliminary results. Spine, 1993, 18: 983-991.
3Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN, et al. 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine, 1997, 22: 2807-2812.
4Bono CM, Lee CK. Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine, 2004, 29: 455-463.
5Watkins MB. Posterior fusion of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine. J Bone Joint Surg(Am), 1953, 35: 1014-1018.
6Greenough CG, Peterson MD, Hadlow S, et al. Instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion. Results and comparison with anterior interbody fusion. Spine, 1998, 23: 479-486.
7Lane J, Moore E. Transperitoneal approach to the intervertebral disc in the lumbar area. Ann Surg, 1948, 127: 537-551.
8Rajaraman V, Vingan R, Roth P, et al. Visceral and vascular complications resulting from anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg,1999, 91: 60-64.
9Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. 1. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg, 1953, 10: 154-168.
