157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12865846)
1. Reconstruction after total sacrectomy using a new instrumentation technique: a biomechanical comparison.
Kawahara N; Murakami H; Yoshida A; Sakamoto J; Oda J; Tomita K
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Jul; 28(14):1567-72. PubMed ID: 12865846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Biomechanical evaluation of reconstructed lumbosacral spine after total sacrectomy.
Murakami H; Kawahara N; Tomita K; Sakamoto J; Oda J
J Orthop Sci; 2002; 7(6):658-64. PubMed ID: 12486469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Biomechanical testing of a novel four-rod technique for lumbo-pelvic reconstruction.
Kelly BP; Shen FH; Schwab JS; Arlet V; Diangelo DJ
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Jun; 33(13):E400-6. PubMed ID: 18520925
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comprehensive biomechanical analysis of three reconstruction techniques following total sacrectomy: an in vitro human cadaveric model.
Macki M; De la Garza-Ramos R; Murgatroyd AA; Mullinix KP; Sun X; Cunningham BW; McCutcheon BA; Bydon M; Gokaslan ZL
J Neurosurg Spine; 2017 Nov; 27(5):570-577. PubMed ID: 28777063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Biomechanical effects of the extent of sacrectomy on the stability of lumbo-iliac reconstruction using iliac screw techniques: What level of sacrectomy requires the bilateral dual iliac screw technique?
Yu BS; Zhuang XM; Li ZM; Zheng ZM; Zhou ZY; Zou XN; Lu WW
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2010 Nov; 25(9):867-72. PubMed ID: 20655639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Biomechanical comparison of a 3D-printed sacrum prosthesis versus rod-screw systems for reconstruction after total sacrectomy: A finite element analysis.
Huang S; Ji T; Guo W
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2019 Dec; 70():203-208. PubMed ID: 31655451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. En bloc sacrectomy and reconstruction: technique modification for pelvic fixation.
Newman CB; Keshavarzi S; Aryan HE
Surg Neurol; 2009 Dec; 72(6):752-6; discussion 756. PubMed ID: 19665193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of four reconstruction methods after total sacrectomy: a finite element study.
Zhu R; Cheng LM; Yu Y; Zander T; Chen B; Rohlmann A
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2012 Oct; 27(8):771-6. PubMed ID: 22705158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Internal and external responses of anterior lumbar/lumbosacral fusion: nonlinear finite element analysis.
Guan Y; Yoganandan N; Maiman DJ; Pintar FA
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2008 Jun; 21(4):299-304. PubMed ID: 18525492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Biomechanical comparison of spinopelvic reconstruction techniques in the setting of total sacrectomy.
Mindea SA; Chinthakunta S; Moldavsky M; Gudipally M; Khalil S
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2012 Dec; 37(26):E1622-7. PubMed ID: 23038619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Surgical techniques for total sacrectomy and spinopelvic reconstruction.
Zhang HY; Thongtrangan I; Balabhadra RS; Murovic JA; Kim DH
Neurosurg Focus; 2003 Aug; 15(2):E5. PubMed ID: 15350036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Biomechanical assessment of anterior lumbar interbody fusion with an anterior lumbosacral fixation screw-plate: comparison to stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion and anterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws in an unstable human cadaver model.
Gerber M; Crawford NR; Chamberlain RH; Fifield MS; LeHuec JC; Dickman CA
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2006 Apr; 31(7):762-8. PubMed ID: 16582849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Total sacrectomy and reconstruction for sacral tumors.
Doita M; Harada T; Iguchi T; Sumi M; Sha H; Yoshiya S; Kurosaka M
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Aug; 28(15):E296-301. PubMed ID: 12897508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Lumbar fusion leads to increases in angular motion and stress across sacroiliac joint: a finite element study.
Ivanov AA; Kiapour A; Ebraheim NA; Goel V
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Mar; 34(5):E162-9. PubMed ID: 19247155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Finite element analysis of lumbosacral reconstruction after partial sacrectomy.
Zheng L; Li Z; Li Q; Ji F; Cai Z
Med Sci Monit; 2014 May; 20():889-93. PubMed ID: 24874025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Sacrectomy for primary sacral tumors.
Sahakitrungruang C; Chantra K; Dusitanond N; Atittharnsakul P; Rojanasakul A
Dis Colon Rectum; 2009 May; 52(5):913-8. PubMed ID: 19502856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Biomechanical comparison of cervical spine reconstructive techniques after a multilevel corpectomy of the cervical spine.
Singh K; Vaccaro AR; Kim J; Lorenz EP; Lim TH; An HS
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Oct; 28(20):2352-8; discussion 2358. PubMed ID: 14560082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Total sacrectomy and Galveston L-rod reconstruction for malignant neoplasms. Technical note.
Gokaslan ZL; Romsdahl MM; Kroll SS; Walsh GL; Gillis TA; Wildrick DM; Leavens ME
J Neurosurg; 1997 Nov; 87(5):781-7. PubMed ID: 9347991
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A biomechanical assessment of infra-laminar hooks as an alternative to supra-laminar hooks in thoracolumbar fixation.
Murakami H; Tsai KJ; Attallah-Wasif ES; Yamazaki K; Shimamura T; Hutton WC
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2006 Apr; 31(9):967-71. PubMed ID: 16641771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Types of spinal instability that require interbody support in posterior lumbar reconstruction: an in vitro biomechanical investigation.
Oda I; Abumi K; Yu BS; Sudo H; Minami A
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Jul; 28(14):1573-80. PubMed ID: 12865847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
