5Lee DY,Lee SH,Kim SK. A rnorphometric analysis of neuroforamen in grade Ⅰ isthmic spondylolisthesis by anterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation[J].J Korean Neurosurg Soc,2007.377-381.
6Fourney DR,Dettori JR,Norvel DC. Does minimal access tubular assisted spine surgery increase or decrease complications in spinal decompression or fusion[J].Spine(Phila Pa 1976),2010.57-65.
7Lee JH,Yoon KS,Kang SB. Comparative sstudy of unilateral and bilateral cages with respect to clinical outcomes and stability in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion[J].Neurosurgery,2008.109-113.
8Faundez AA,Schwender JP,Sefriel Y. Clinical and radiological outcome of anterior-posterior fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for symptormatic disc degeneration:a retrospective comparative study of 133 patients[J].European Spine Journal,2009.203-211.
9Schizas C,Tzinieris N,Tsiridis E. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion:evaluatiny initial experience[J].International Orthopaedics,2009.1683-1688.
3Lowe TG, Tabernia AD, O' brien MF, et al. Unilateral transforaminal posterior lurnabar interbody fusion : indication, technique, and 2-years results[ J]. J Spine Disord Tech,2002,1:31 - 38.
4Poussa M, Remes V, Lamberg T, et al. Treatment of severe spondylolis- thesis in adolescence with reduction or fusion insitu :long-term clinical, radiologic, and functional outcome [ J ]. Spine,2006,5:583 - 590.
5Floman Y, Michael AM, Ashkenazi E, et al. Instrumented slip reduc- tion and fusion for painful unstable isthmic spondylolisthesisi in adults [J]. J Spinal Disord Tech ,2008 ,7 :477 -483.
6Goyal N, David WW, Hyatt A, et al. Radiographic and clinical out- comes after instrumented reduction and transforaminal lumbar inter- body fusion of mild and high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis [ J ]. J Spinal Disord Tech ,2009,5 : 321 - 327.
1Fritzell P, Hagg O, Nordwall A. Complications in lumbar fusion sur- gery for chronic low back pain: comparison of three surgical tech- niques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group[ J]. Eur Spine J,2003,2:178 - 189.
2Lee CK. Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lum- bar fusion[ J]. Spine, 1988,3:375 - 377.
3Gillet P. The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion [ J]. J Spinal Disord Tech,2003,4:338 - 345.
4Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN, et al. Adjacent segment degenera- tion in the lumbar spine [ J]. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2003,4:338 - 345.
5Zhang HY, Park JY, Cho BY. The bioflex system as a dynamic stabi- lization device : does it preserve lumbar motion [ J ]. J Korean Neuro- surg Soc ,2009,5:431 - 436.
6Kim YS, Zhang HY, Moon BJ,et al. Nitinol spring rod dynamic sta- bilization system and nitinol memory loops in surgical treatment for lumbar disc disorders: short -term follow up[ J]. Neurosurg Focus, 2007,1:1 -9.
7Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine : a multi - center study of a novel non - fusion system[ J]. Eur Spine J, 2002,2 : 170 - 178.
8Kuslich SD, Uistrom CL, Griffith SL, et al. The Bagby and Kuslich method of lumbar interbody fusion. History, techniques, and 2-year follow-up results of a United States prospective,multicenter trial.Spine. 1998; 23(11 ): 1267-1279.
9Glassman SD, Johnson JR, Raque G, et al. Management of iatrogenic spinal stenosis complicating placement of a fusion cage. A case report. Spine. 1996; 21 (20): 2383- 2386.
10Boden SD. Overview of the biology of lumbar spine fusion and principles for selecting a bone graft substitute. Spine. 2002;27(16 suppl 1):S26-S31.
