These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12089797)

  • 1. [Stabilizing effect and sintering tendency of 3 different cages and bone cement for fusion of cervical vertebrae segments].
    Wilke HJ; Kettler A; Claes L
    Orthopade; 2002 May; 31(5):472-80. PubMed ID: 12089797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Primary stabilizing effect of interbody fusion devices for the cervical spine: an in vitro comparison between three different cage types and bone cement.
    Wilke HJ; Kettler A; Claes L
    Eur Spine J; 2000 Oct; 9(5):410-6. PubMed ID: 11057535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Subsidence resulting from simulated postoperative neck movements: an in vitro investigation with a new cervical fusion cage.
    Wilke HJ; Kettler A; Goetz C; Claes L
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2000 Nov; 25(21):2762-70. PubMed ID: 11064521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effects of neck movements on stability and subsidence in cervical interbody fusion: an in vitro study.
    Kettler A; Wilke HJ; Claes L
    J Neurosurg; 2001 Jan; 94(1 Suppl):97-107. PubMed ID: 11147875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Biomechanical comparison of cervical spine interbody fusion cages.
    Kandziora F; Pflugmacher R; Schäfer J; Born C; Duda G; Haas NP; Mittlmeier T
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2001 Sep; 26(17):1850-7. PubMed ID: 11568693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Dislocation tendency, stabilizing effect and sintering tendency of different lumbar vertebrae cages in an in vitro experiment].
    Kettler A; Dietl R; Krammer M; Lumenta CB; Claes L; Wilke HJ
    Orthopade; 2002 May; 31(5):481-7. PubMed ID: 12089798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Biomechanical comparison of bioabsorbable cervical spine interbody fusion cages.
    Pflugmacher R; Schleicher P; Gumnior S; Turan O; Scholz M; Eindorf T; Haas NP; Kandziora F
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2004 Aug; 29(16):1717-22. PubMed ID: 15303013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Application of a stand-alone interbody fusion cage based on a novel porous TiO2/glass ceramic--2: Biomechanical evaluation after implantation in the sheep cervical spine].
    Korinth MC; Hero T; Pandorf T; Zell D
    Biomed Tech (Berl); 2005 Apr; 50(4):111-8. PubMed ID: 15884708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Biomechanical evaluation of stand-alone interbody fusion cages in the cervical spine.
    Shimamoto N; Cunningham BW; Dmitriev AE; Minami A; McAfee PC
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2001 Oct; 26(19):E432-6. PubMed ID: 11698902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Can an Endplate-conformed Cervical Cage Provide a Better Biomechanical Environment than a Typical Non-conformed Cage?: A Finite Element Model and Cadaver Study.
    Zhang F; Xu HC; Yin B; Xia XL; Ma XS; Wang HL; Yin J; Shao MH; Lyu FZ; Jiang JY
    Orthop Surg; 2016 Aug; 8(3):367-76. PubMed ID: 27627721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Experimental fusion of the sheep cervical spine. Part I: Effect of cage design on interbody fusion].
    Kandziora F; Pflugmacher R; Scholz M; Schäfer J; Schollmeier G; Schnake KJ; Bail H; Duda G; Haas NP
    Chirurg; 2002 Sep; 73(9):909-17. PubMed ID: 12297957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Bioabsorbable interbody cages in a sheep cervical spine fusion model.
    Kandziora F; Pflugmacher R; Scholz M; Eindorf T; Schnake KJ; Haas NP
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2004 Sep; 29(17):1845-55; discussion 1856. PubMed ID: 15534403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Biomechanics of an integrated interbody device versus ACDF anterior locking plate in a single-level cervical spine fusion construct.
    Stein MI; Nayak AN; Gaskins RB; Cabezas AF; Santoni BG; Castellvi AE
    Spine J; 2014 Jan; 14(1):128-36. PubMed ID: 24231054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Effect of design and implantation technique on risk of progressive sintering of various cervical vertebrae cages].
    Fürderer S; Schöllhuber F; Rompe JD; Eysel P
    Orthopade; 2002 May; 31(5):466-71. PubMed ID: 12089796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Biomechanical comparison of expandable cages for vertebral body replacement in the thoracolumbar spine.
    Pflugmacher R; Schleicher P; Schaefer J; Scholz M; Ludwig K; Khodadadyan-Klostermann C; Haas NP; Kandziora F
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2004 Jul; 29(13):1413-9. PubMed ID: 15223931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. In vitro stabilizing effect of a transforaminal compared with two posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages.
    Kettler A; Schmoelz W; Kast E; Gottwald M; Claes L; Wilke HJ
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2005 Nov; 30(22):E665-70. PubMed ID: 16284577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A pedicle screw system and a lamina hook system provide similar primary and long-term stability: a biomechanical in vitro study with quasi-static and dynamic loading conditions.
    Wilke HJ; Kaiser D; Volkheimer D; Hackenbroch C; Püschel K; Rauschmann M
    Eur Spine J; 2016 Sep; 25(9):2919-28. PubMed ID: 27405823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The role of cage height on the flexibility and load sharing of lumbar spine after lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral and bilateral instrumentation: a biomechanical study.
    Du L; Sun XJ; Zhou TJ; Li YC; Chen C; Zhao CQ; Zhang K; Zhao J
    BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2017 Nov; 18(1):474. PubMed ID: 29162074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: the effect of various instrumentation techniques on the flexibility of the lumbar spine.
    Harris BM; Hilibrand AS; Savas PE; Pellegrino A; Vaccaro AR; Siegler S; Albert TJ
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2004 Feb; 29(4):E65-70. PubMed ID: 15094547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Factors affecting sagittal malalignment due to cage subsidence in standalone cage assisted anterior cervical fusion.
    Barsa P; Suchomel P
    Eur Spine J; 2007 Sep; 16(9):1395-400. PubMed ID: 17221174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.