236 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12865843)
1. The effect of vertebral body percentage fill on mechanical behavior during percutaneous vertebroplasty.
Molloy S; Mathis JM; Belkoff SM
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Jul; 28(14):1549-54. PubMed ID: 12865843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Biomechanical effects of unipedicular vertebroplasty on intact vertebrae.
Higgins KB; Harten RD; Langrana NA; Reiter MF
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Jul; 28(14):1540-7; discussion 1548. PubMed ID: 12865841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effect of bone density on vertebral strength and stiffness after percutaneous vertebroplasty.
Graham J; Ahn C; Hai N; Buch BD
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Aug; 32(18):E505-11. PubMed ID: 17700430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Biomechanical evaluation of kyphoplasty with calcium sulfate cement in a cadaveric osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture model.
Perry A; Mahar A; Massie J; Arrieta N; Garfin S; Kim C
Spine J; 2005; 5(5):489-93. PubMed ID: 16153574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Vertebroplasty: only small cement volumes are required to normalize stress distributions on the vertebral bodies.
Luo J; Daines L; Charalambous A; Adams MA; Annesley-Williams DJ; Dolan P
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Dec; 34(26):2865-73. PubMed ID: 20010394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Biomechanical comparison of transpedicular versus extrapedicular vertebroplasty using polymethylmethacrylate.
Erkan S; Wu C; Mehbod AA; Cho W; Transfeldt EE
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2010 May; 23(3):180-5. PubMed ID: 20065863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The biomechanics of vertebroplasty. The effect of cement volume on mechanical behavior.
Belkoff SM; Mathis JM; Jasper LE; Deramond H
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2001 Jul; 26(14):1537-41. PubMed ID: 11462082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A biomechanical analysis of intravertebral pressures during vertebroplasty of cadaveric spines with and without simulated metastases.
Reidy D; Ahn H; Mousavi P; Finkelstein J; Whyne CM
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Jul; 28(14):1534-9. PubMed ID: 12865840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Biomechanical evaluation of the vertebral jack tool and the inflatable bone tamp for reduction of osteoporotic spine fractures.
Sietsma MS; Hosman AJ; Verdonschot NJ; Aalsma AM; Veldhuizen AG
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Aug; 34(18):E640-4. PubMed ID: 19680089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Is kyphoplasty better than vertebroplasty in restoring normal mechanical function to an injured spine?
Luo J; Bertram W; Sangar D; Adams MA; Annesley-Williams DJ; Dolan P
Bone; 2010 Apr; 46(4):1050-7. PubMed ID: 20004264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Biomechanical comparison of augmentation techniques for insufficiency fractures.
McCann H; LePine M; Glaser J
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2006 Jul; 31(15):E499-502. PubMed ID: 16816750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Preliminary biomechanical evaluation of prophylactic vertebral reinforcement adjacent to vertebroplasty under cyclic loading.
Oakland RJ; Furtado NR; Wilcox RK; Timothy J; Hall RM
Spine J; 2009 Feb; 9(2):174-81. PubMed ID: 18640876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A biomechanical investigation of vertebroplasty in osteoporotic compression fractures and in prophylactic vertebral reinforcement.
Furtado N; Oakland RJ; Wilcox RK; Hall RM
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Aug; 32(17):E480-7. PubMed ID: 17762281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Biomechanical efficacy of unipedicular versus bipedicular vertebroplasty for the management of osteoporotic compression fractures.
Tohmeh AG; Mathis JM; Fenton DC; Levine AM; Belkoff SM
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1999 Sep; 24(17):1772-6. PubMed ID: 10488505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Biomechanical evaluation of an injectable calcium phosphate cement for vertebroplasty.
Lim TH; Brebach GT; Renner SM; Kim WJ; Kim JG; Lee RE; Andersson GB; An HS
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2002 Jun; 27(12):1297-302. PubMed ID: 12065977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effect of vertebroplasty on the compressive strength of vertebral bodies.
Pneumaticos SG; Triantafyllopoulos GK; Evangelopoulos DS; Hipp JA; Heggeness MH
Spine J; 2013 Dec; 13(12):1921-7. PubMed ID: 23981817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Biomechanical evaluation of a novel fenestrated pedicle screw augmented with bone cement in osteoporotic spines.
Paré PE; Chappuis JL; Rampersaud R; Agarwala AO; Perra JH; Erkan S; Wu C
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2011 Aug; 36(18):E1210-4. PubMed ID: 21325986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The mechanics of polymethylmethacrylate augmentation.
Kayanja M; Evans K; Milks R; Lieberman IH
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2006 Feb; 443():124-30. PubMed ID: 16462435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Biomechanical comparison of unipedicular versus bipedicular kyphoplasty.
Steinmann J; Tingey CT; Cruz G; Dai Q
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2005 Jan; 30(2):201-5. PubMed ID: 15644756
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Temperature measurement during polymerization of polymethylmethacrylate cement used for vertebroplasty.
Belkoff SM; Molloy S
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Jul; 28(14):1555-9. PubMed ID: 12865844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
