194 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14706323)
1. Structural behavior of human lumbar spinal motion segments.
Gardner-Morse MG; Stokes IA
J Biomech; 2004 Feb; 37(2):205-12. PubMed ID: 14706323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Motion segment stiffness measured without physiological levels of axial compressive preload underestimates the in vivo values in all six degrees of freedom.
Gardner-Morse MG; Stokes IA; Churchill D; Badger G
Stud Health Technol Inform; 2002; 91():167-72. PubMed ID: 15457717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Physiological axial compressive preloads increase motion segment stiffness, linearity and hysteresis in all six degrees of freedom for small displacements about the neutral posture.
Gardner-Morse MG; Stokes IA
J Orthop Res; 2003 May; 21(3):547-52. PubMed ID: 12706030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Compressive preload reduces segmental flexion instability after progressive destabilization of the lumbar spine.
Fry RW; Alamin TF; Voronov LI; Fielding LC; Ghanayem AJ; Parikh A; Carandang G; Mcintosh BW; Havey RM; Patwardhan AG
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2014 Jan; 39(2):E74-81. PubMed ID: 24153162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Compressive preload improves the stability of anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage constructs.
Patwardhan AG; Carandang G; Ghanayem AJ; Havey RM; Cunningham B; Voronov LI; Phillips FM
J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2003 Sep; 85(9):1749-56. PubMed ID: 12954834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Analysis of large compression loads on lumbar spine in flexion and in torsion using a novel wrapping element.
Shirazi-Adl A
J Biomech; 2006; 39(2):267-75. PubMed ID: 16321628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Relevance of using a compressive preload in the cervical spine: an experimental and numerical simulating investigation.
Barrey C; Rousseau MA; Persohn S; Campana S; Perrin G; Skalli W
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol; 2015 Jul; 25 Suppl 1():S155-65. PubMed ID: 25845316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Frequency-dependent behavior of the intervertebral disc in response to each of six degree of freedom dynamic loading: solid phase and fluid phase contributions.
Costi JJ; Stokes IA; Gardner-Morse MG; Iatridis JC
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Jul; 33(16):1731-8. PubMed ID: 18628705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparison of the torsional stiffness of the lumbar spine in flexion and extension.
Garges KJ; Nourbakhsh A; Morris R; Yang J; Mody M; Patterson R
J Manipulative Physiol Ther; 2008 Oct; 31(8):563-9. PubMed ID: 18984238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. A database of lumbar spinal mechanical behavior for validation of spinal analytical models.
Stokes IAF; Gardner-Morse M
J Biomech; 2016 Mar; 49(5):780-785. PubMed ID: 26900035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effect of compressive follower preload on the flexion-extension response of the human lumbar spine.
Patwardhan AG; Havey RM; Carandang G; Simonds J; Voronov LI; Ghanayem AJ; Meade KP; Gavin TM; Paxinos O
J Orthop Res; 2003 May; 21(3):540-6. PubMed ID: 12706029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Intervertebral disc degeneration alters lumbar spine segmental stiffness in all modes of loading under a compressive follower load.
Zirbel SA; Stolworthy DK; Howell LL; Bowden AE
Spine J; 2013 Sep; 13(9):1134-47. PubMed ID: 23507531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis.
Rohlmann A; Burra NK; Zander T; Bergmann G
Eur Spine J; 2007 Aug; 16(8):1223-31. PubMed ID: 17206401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Robotic application of a dynamic resultant force vector using real-time load-control: simulation of an ideal follower load on Cadaveric L4-L5 segments.
Bennett CR; Kelly BP
J Biomech; 2013 Aug; 46(12):2087-92. PubMed ID: 23809771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Kinematics and load-sharing of an anterior thoracolumbar spinal reconstruction construct with PEEK rods: An in vitro biomechanical study.
Zhou R; Huang Z; Liu X; Tong J; Ji W; Liu S; Zhu Q
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2016 Dec; 40():1-7. PubMed ID: 27756005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. An in vitro biomechanical comparison of Cadisc™-L with natural lumbar discs in axial compression and sagittal flexion.
McNally D; Naylor J; Johnson S
Eur Spine J; 2012 Jun; 21 Suppl 5(Suppl 5):S612-7. PubMed ID: 22411042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Biomechanical comparison of effects of the Dynesys and Coflex dynamic stabilization systems on range of motion and loading characteristics in the lumbar spine: a finite element study.
Kulduk A; Altun NS; Senkoylu A
Int J Med Robot; 2015 Dec; 11(4):400-5. PubMed ID: 25643936
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Biomechanical effect of constraint in lumbar total disc replacement: a study with finite element analysis.
Chung SK; Kim YE; Wang KC
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 May; 34(12):1281-6. PubMed ID: 19455003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Biomechanical characteristics of different regions of the human spine: an in vitro study on multilevel spinal segments.
Busscher I; van Dieën JH; Kingma I; van der Veen AJ; Verkerke GJ; Veldhuizen AG
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Dec; 34(26):2858-64. PubMed ID: 20010393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
