 |
|
Can Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Substitute Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis?
Maruf Mohammad Hasib, Kentaro Yamada, Masatoshi Hoshino, Eiji Yamada, Koji Tamai, Shinji Takahashi, Akinobu Suzuki, Hiromitsu Toyoda, Hidetomi Terai, Hiroaki Nakamura
Asian Spine J. 2021;15(4):472-480. Published online 2020 Oct 19 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0133
|
|
Citations to this article as recorded by
 Exploring the impact of mild-to-moderate foraminal stenosis at L5−S1 on clinical outcomes following L4−5 posterior lumbar interbody fusion
Hyung Rae Lee, Jae Hwan Cho, Dong-Ho Lee, Sang Yun Seok, Chang Ju Hwang, Choon Sung Lee
The Spine Journal.2024; 24(5): 820. CrossRef Neuroforamen stenosis remains a challenge in conventional computed tomography and new dual-energy techniques
Ann-Kathrin Ditges, Torsten Diekhoff, Nils Engelhard, Maximilian Muellner, Matthias Pumberger, Friederike Schömig
Scientific Reports.2022;[Epub] CrossRef Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Review Update 2022
Ji-won Kwon, Seong-Hwan Moon, Si-Young Park, Sang-Jun Park, Sub-Ri Park, Kyung-Soo Suk, Hak-Sun Kim, Byung Ho Lee
Asian Spine Journal.2022; 16(5): 789. CrossRef
|