318 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14560084)
1. Comparison of three lumbar orthoses using motion assessment during task performance.
Krag MH; Fox MS J; Haugh LD
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Oct; 28(20):2359-67. PubMed ID: 14560084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The effects of three different types of orthoses on the range of motion of the lumbar spine during 15 activities of daily living.
Jegede KA; Miller CP; Bible JE; Whang PG; Grauer JN
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2011 Dec; 36(26):2346-53. PubMed ID: 21358469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effect of 2 different thoracolumbar orthoses on the stability of the spine during various body movements.
Kienle A; Saidi S; Oberst M
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Aug; 38(17):E1082-9. PubMed ID: 23644685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Assessing range of motion to evaluate the adverse effects of ill-fitting cervical orthoses.
Bell KM; Frazier EC; Shively CM; Hartman RA; Ulibarri JC; Lee JY; Kang JD; Donaldson WF
Spine J; 2009 Mar; 9(3):225-31. PubMed ID: 18504164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of motion restriction and trunk stiffness provided by three thoracolumbosacral orthoses (TLSOs).
Cholewicki J; Alvi K; Silfies SP; Bartolomei J
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2003 Oct; 16(5):461-8. PubMed ID: 14526195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Mechanical effectiveness studies of lumbar spine orthoses.
Nachemson A; Schultz A; Andersson G
Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl; 1983; 9():139-49. PubMed ID: 6232699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Soft and rigid collars provide similar restriction in cervical range of motion during fifteen activities of daily living.
Miller CP; Bible JE; Jegede KA; Whang PG; Grauer JN
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2010 Jun; 35(13):1271-8. PubMed ID: 20512025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Lumbar spine stabilization with a thoracolumbosacral orthosis: evaluation with video fluoroscopy.
Vander Kooi D; Abad G; Basford JR; Maus TP; Yaszemski MJ; Kaufman KR
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2004 Jan; 29(1):100-4. PubMed ID: 14699284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparison of fatigue failure responses of old versus middle-aged lumbar motion segments in simulated flexed lifting.
Gallagher S; Marras WS; Litsky AS; Burr D; Landoll J; Matkovic V
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Aug; 32(17):1832-9. PubMed ID: 17762290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Biomechanics of posterior dynamic stabilizing device (DIAM) after facetectomy and discectomy.
Phillips FM; Voronov LI; Gaitanis IN; Carandang G; Havey RM; Patwardhan AG
Spine J; 2006; 6(6):714-22. PubMed ID: 17088203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. The effect of a static wrist orthosis on hand function in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis.
Pagnotta A; Baron M; Korner-Bitensky N
J Rheumatol; 1998 May; 25(5):879-85. PubMed ID: 9598884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Response of Charité total disc replacement under physiologic loads: prosthesis component motion patterns.
O'Leary P; Nicolakis M; Lorenz MA; Voronov LI; Zindrick MR; Ghanayem A; Havey RM; Carandang G; Sartori M; Gaitanis IN; Fronczak S; Patwardhan AG
Spine J; 2005; 5(6):590-9. PubMed ID: 16291097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Preliminary kinematic evaluation of a new stance-control knee-ankle-foot orthosis.
Yakimovich T; Lemaire ED; Kofman J
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2006 Dec; 21(10):1081-9. PubMed ID: 16949186
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Lumbosacral orthoses reduce trunk muscle activity in a postural control task.
Cholewicki J; Reeves NP; Everding VQ; Morrisette DC
J Biomech; 2007; 40(8):1731-6. PubMed ID: 17054963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Biomechanical comparison of a two-level Maverick disc replacement with a hybrid one-level disc replacement and one-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion.
Erkan S; Rivera Y; Wu C; Mehbod AA; Transfeldt EE
Spine J; 2009 Oct; 9(10):830-5. PubMed ID: 19477692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Reduction in head and intervertebral motion provided by 7 contemporary cervical orthoses in 45 individuals.
Schneider AM; Hipp JA; Nguyen L; Reitman CA
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Jan; 32(1):E1-6. PubMed ID: 17202874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Prospective, randomized trial of metal-on-metal artificial lumbar disc replacement: initial results for treatment of discogenic pain.
Sasso RC; Foulk DM; Hahn M
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Jan; 33(2):123-31. PubMed ID: 18197095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Video fluoroscopic analysis of the effects of three commonly-prescribed off-the-shelf orthoses on vertebral motion.
Utter A; Anderson ML; Cunniff JG; Kaufman KR; Jelsing EJ; Patrick TA; Magnuson DJ; Maus TP; Yaszemski MJ; Basford JR
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2010 May; 35(12):E525-9. PubMed ID: 20445478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Changes in 3D joint kinematics support the continuous use of orthoses in the management of painful rearfoot deformity in rheumatoid arthritis.
Woodburn J; Helliwell PS; Barker S
J Rheumatol; 2003 Nov; 30(11):2356-64. PubMed ID: 14677177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
