EditorialEditorial
Open Access

An attempt at clinically defining and assessing minimally invasive surgery compared with traditional “open” spinal surgery

Paul C. McAfee, Steven R. Garfin, W. Blake Rodgers, R. Todd Allen, Frank Phillips and Choll Kim
International Journal of Spine Surgery January 2011, 5 (4) 125-130; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esas.2011.06.002

Article Information

vol. 5 no. 4 125-130
DOI 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esas.2011.06.002
Published By 
International Journal of Spine Surgery
Online ISSN 
2211-4599
History 
  • Published online January 1, 2011.
Copyright & Usage 
© 2011 SAS - The International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Author Information

  1. Paul C. McAfee, MD, MBAa,b,*,
  2. Steven R. Garfin, MDc,
  3. W. Blake Rodgers, MDd,
  4. R. Todd Allen, MDc,e,
  5. Frank Phillips, MDf and
  6. Choll Kim, MDg
  1. aDepartment of Spinal Reconstructive Surgery, St Joseph's Hospital, Baltimore, MD
  2. bJohns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
  3. cDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA
  4. dSpine Midwest, Inc., Jefferson City, MO
  5. eVA Medical Center, San Diego, CA
  6. fDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL
  7. gSociety of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery, Spine Institute of San Diego, Center for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery, San Diego, CA
  1. ↵* Corresponding author: Paul C. McAfee, MD, MBA, St Josephs Hospital, O'Dea Medical Arts Bld, Suite 104, 7505 Osler Drive, Towson, MD 21204; Tel: 410-337-8888; Fax: 410-823-4833. E-mail address: SpineFellows{at}gmail.com
View Full Text

Article usage

Article usage: April 2018 to January 2025

AbstractFullPdf
Apr 2018020
May 2018141
Jun 2018011
Jul 2018011
Aug 2018321
Sep 2018013
Oct 2018113
Nov 2018042
Dec 2018030
Jan 2019292
Feb 2019182
Mar 2019411
Apr 2019006
May 2019243
Jun 2019030
Jul 2019010
Aug 2019242
Sep 2019130
Oct 2019121
Nov 2019131
Dec 2019132
Jan 2020020
Feb 2020154
Mar 2020241
Apr 2020040
May 2020251
Jun 2020110
Jul 2020411
Aug 2020139
Sep 2020054
Oct 20202123
Nov 2020044
Dec 2020031
Jan 2021024
Feb 2021110
Mar 2021330
Apr 2021110
May 2021230
Jun 2021211
Jul 2021233
Aug 2021435
Sep 2021010
Oct 2021273
Nov 2021243
Dec 2021062
Jan 2022223
Feb 2022132
Mar 2022025
Apr 2022171
May 2022266
Jun 2022146
Jul 2022100
Aug 2022213
Sep 2022126
Oct 2022035
Nov 2022125
Dec 20221103
Jan 2023298
Feb 2023114
Mar 2023013
Apr 2023033
May 2023215
Jun 2023485
Jul 20231710
Aug 20230210
Sep 2023060
Oct 2023224
Nov 20230154
Dec 20230151
Jan 2024163
Feb 20241192
Mar 20241104
Apr 20241710
May 20241658
Jun 20241124
Jul 2024273
Aug 20240184
Sep 202421012
Oct 2024184
Nov 2024030
Dec 2024165
Jan 2025052

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Cited By...

Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
An attempt at clinically defining and assessing minimally invasive surgery compared with traditional “open” spinal surgery
Paul C. McAfee, Steven R. Garfin, W. Blake Rodgers, R. Todd Allen, Frank Phillips, Choll Kim
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jan 2011, 5 (4) 125-130; DOI: 10.1016/j.esas.2011.06.002
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Keywords