360 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12954828)
21. The Impact of Three-Dimensional CT Imaging on Intraobserver and Interobserver Reliability of Proximal Humeral Fracture Classifications and Treatment Recommendations.
Berkes MB; Dines JS; Little MT; Garner MR; Shifflett GD; Lazaro LE; Wellman DS; Dines DM; Lorich DG
J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2014 Aug; 96(15):1281-1286. PubMed ID: 25100775
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Reliability of the classification of proximal femur fractures: Does clinical experience matter?
Crijns TJ; Janssen SJ; Davis JT; Ring D; Sanchez HB;
Injury; 2018 Apr; 49(4):819-823. PubMed ID: 29549969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Classification of intertrochanteric fractures with computed tomography: a study of intraobserver and interobserver variability and prognostic value.
Chapman CB; Herrera MF; Binenbaum G; Schweppe M; Staron RB; Feldman F; Rosenwasser MP
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ); 2003 Sep; 32(9):443-9. PubMed ID: 14560826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Association of femoral head and acetabular fractures on computerized tomography: correlation with the Judet-Letournel classification.
Beckmann NM; Chinapuvvula NR; Cai C
Emerg Radiol; 2017 Oct; 24(5):531-539. PubMed ID: 28424914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Reliability and necessity of computerized tomography in distal tibial physeal injuries.
Thawrani D; Kuester V; Gabos PG; Kruse RW; Littleton AG; Rogers KJ; Holmes L; Thacker MM
J Pediatr Orthop; 2011; 31(7):745-50. PubMed ID: 21926871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Comparison of three-dimensional and two-dimensional computed tomographies in the classification of acetabular fractures.
Kanthawang T; Vaseenon T; Sripan P; Pattamapaspong N
Emerg Radiol; 2020 Apr; 27(2):157-164. PubMed ID: 31792749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of two classification systems for intra-articular calcaneal fractures.
Lauder AJ; Inda DJ; Bott AM; Clare MP; Fitzgibbons TC; Mormino MA
Foot Ankle Int; 2006 Apr; 27(4):251-5. PubMed ID: 16624214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. [The value of CT in classification and decision making in acetabulum fractures. A systematic analysis].
Hüfner T; Pohlemann T; Gänsslen A; Assassi P; Prokop M; Tscherne H
Unfallchirurg; 1999 Feb; 102(2):124-31. PubMed ID: 10098419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability in the load sharing classification of the assessment of thoracolumbar burst fractures.
Dai LY; Jin WJ
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2005 Feb; 30(3):354-8. PubMed ID: 15682019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Standardized three dimensional computerised tomography scanner reconstructions increase the accuracy of acetabular fracture classification.
Sebaaly A; Riouallon G; Zaraa M; Upex P; Marteau V; Jouffroy P
Int Orthop; 2018 Aug; 42(8):1957-1965. PubMed ID: 29396805
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Interobserver reliability of the young-burgess and tile classification systems for fractures of the pelvic ring.
Koo H; Leveridge M; Thompson C; Zdero R; Bhandari M; Kreder HJ; Stephen D; McKee MD; Schemitsch EH
J Orthop Trauma; 2008 Jul; 22(6):379-84. PubMed ID: 18594301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 3D-printed Handheld Models Do Not Improve Recognition of Specific Characteristics and Patterns of Three-part and Four-part Proximal Humerus Fractures.
Spek RWA; Schoolmeesters BJA; Oosterhoff JHF; Doornberg JN; van den Bekerom MPJ; Jaarsma RL; Eygendaal D; IJpma F;
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2022 Jan; 480(1):150-159. PubMed ID: 34427569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. [Computer tomography in the diagnosis and therapy of acetabular fractures].
Senohradski K; Karovic B; Miric D
Srp Arh Celok Lek; 2001; 129(7-8):194-8. PubMed ID: 11797449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Normal acetabular anatomy for acetabular fracture assessment: CT and plain film correlation.
Saks BJ
Radiology; 1986 Apr; 159(1):139-45. PubMed ID: 3952299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Evaluation of the Neer system of classification of proximal humeral fractures with computerized tomographic scans and plain radiographs.
Bernstein J; Adler LM; Blank JE; Dalsey RM; Williams GR; Iannotti JP
J Bone Joint Surg Am; 1996 Sep; 78(9):1371-5. PubMed ID: 8816653
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability assessment of tibial plateau fracture classification systems.
Taşkesen A; Demirkale İ; Okkaoğlu MC; Özdemir M; Bilgili MG; Altay M
Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi; 2017 Dec; 28(3):177-81. PubMed ID: 29125816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. The ongoing relevance of acetabular fracture classification.
Hutt JR; Ortega-Briones A; Daurka JS; Bircher MD; Rickman MS
Bone Joint J; 2015 Aug; 97-B(8):1139-43. PubMed ID: 26224834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Assessment of the AO/ASIF fracture classification for the distal tibia.
Martin JS; Marsh JL; Bonar SK; DeCoster TA; Found EM; Brandser EA
J Orthop Trauma; 1997 Oct; 11(7):477-83. PubMed ID: 9334948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Reliability and reproducibility of dens fracture classification with use of plain radiography and reformatted computer-aided tomography.
Barker L; Anderson J; Chesnut R; Nesbit G; Tjauw T; Hart R
J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2006 Jan; 88(1):106-12. PubMed ID: 16391255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Reliability and agreement between fine-cut CT scans and plain radiography in the evaluation of posterolateral fusions.
Carreon LY; Glassman SD; Djurasovic M
Spine J; 2007; 7(1):39-43. PubMed ID: 17197331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
