143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14560190)
1. Wear analysis of the Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis.
Anderson PA; Rouleau JP; Bryan VE; Carlson CS
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Oct; 28(20):S186-94. PubMed ID: 14560190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Cervical disc replacement-porous coated motion prosthesis: a comparative biomechanical analysis showing the key role of the posterior longitudinal ligament.
McAfee PC; Cunningham B; Dmitriev A; Hu N; Woo Kim S; Cappuccino A; Pimenta L
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Oct; 28(20):S176-85. PubMed ID: 14560189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results.
Anderson PA; Sasso RC; Rouleau JP; Carlson CS; Goffin J
Spine J; 2004; 4(6 Suppl):303S-309S. PubMed ID: 15541681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Basic scientific considerations in total disc arthroplasty.
Cunningham BW
Spine J; 2004; 4(6 Suppl):219S-230S. PubMed ID: 15541670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis.
Anderson PA; Sasso RC; Riew KD
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 May; 33(12):1305-12. PubMed ID: 18496341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Stress analysis of the interface between cervical vertebrae end plates and the Bryan, Prestige LP, and ProDisc-C cervical disc prostheses: an in vivo image-based finite element study.
Lin CY; Kang H; Rouleau JP; Hollister SJ; Marca FL
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Jul; 34(15):1554-60. PubMed ID: 19564765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Relaxation of forces needed to distract cervical vertebrae after discectomy: a biomechanical study.
Aryan HE; Newman CB; Lu DC; Hu SS; Tay BK; Bradford DS; Puttlitz CM; Ames CP
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2009 Apr; 22(2):100-4. PubMed ID: 19342931
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Motion analysis of bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion: results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial.
Sasso RC; Best NM; Metcalf NH; Anderson PA
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2008 Aug; 21(6):393-9. PubMed ID: 18679092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A biomimetic artificial intervertebral disc system composed of a cubic three-dimensional fabric.
Shikinami Y; Kawabe Y; Yasukawa K; Tsuta K; Kotani Y; Abumi K
Spine J; 2010 Feb; 10(2):141-52. PubMed ID: 19944651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Regarding; Bryan disc related cervical kyphosis.
Hacker B; Papadopoulos S; Sasso R
Spine J; 2007; 7(1):139. PubMed ID: 17197346
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Biomaterial optimization in total disc arthroplasty.
Hallab N; Link HD; McAfee PC
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Oct; 28(20):S139-52. PubMed ID: 14560185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Design limitations of Bryan disc arthroplasty.
Fong SY; DuPlessis SJ; Casha S; Hurlbert RJ
Spine J; 2006; 6(3):233-41. PubMed ID: 16651216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients.
Sasso RC; Smucker JD; Hacker RJ; Heller JG
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Dec; 32(26):2933-40; discussion 2941-2. PubMed ID: 18091483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A comparison of simulator-tested and -retrieved cervical disc prostheses. Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004.
Anderson PA; Rouleau JP; Toth JM; Riew KD
J Neurosurg Spine; 2004 Sep; 1(2):202-10. PubMed ID: 15347007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. An in vitro assessment of wear particulate generated from NUBAC: a PEEK-on-PEEK articulating nucleus replacement device: methodology and results from a series of wear tests using different motion profiles, test frequencies, and environmental conditions.
Brown T; Bao QB; Agrawal CM; Hallab NJ
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2011 Dec; 36(26):E1675-85. PubMed ID: 21494194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Clinical outcomes of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with 24-month follow-up.
Sasso RC; Smucker JD; Hacker RJ; Heller JG
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2007 Oct; 20(7):481-91. PubMed ID: 17912124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Functional evaluation of the cervical spine after Bryan artificial disc replacement].
Tian W; Liu B; Li Q; Hu L; Li ZY; Yuan Q; Han X
Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2008 Mar; 46(5):338-41. PubMed ID: 18785527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Biomechanical analysis of rotational motions after disc arthroplasty: implications for patients with adult deformities.
McAfee PC; Cunningham BW; Hayes V; Sidiqi F; Dabbah M; Sefter JC; Hu N; Beatson H
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2006 Sep; 31(19 Suppl):S152-60. PubMed ID: 16946633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A comparison of retraction pressure during anterior cervical plate surgery and cervical disc replacement: a cadaveric study.
Tortolani PJ; Cunningham BW; Vigna F; Hu N; Zorn CM; McAfee PC
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2006 Jul; 19(5):312-7. PubMed ID: 16826000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Magnetic resonance imaging clarity of the Bryan, Prodisc-C, Prestige LP, and PCM cervical arthroplasty devices.
Sekhon LH; Duggal N; Lynch JJ; Haid RW; Heller JG; Riew KD; Seex K; Anderson PA
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Mar; 32(6):673-80. PubMed ID: 17413473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
