498 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15534407)
1. Biomechanical analysis of transpedicular screw fixation in the subaxial cervical spine.
Kothe R; Rüther W; Schneider E; Linke B
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2004 Sep; 29(17):1869-75. PubMed ID: 15534407
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Biomechanical comparison between C-7 lateral mass and pedicle screws in subaxial cervical constructs. Presented at the 2009 Joint Spine Meeting. Laboratory investigation.
Xu R; McGirt MJ; Sutter EG; Sciubba DM; Wolinsky JP; Witham TF; Gokaslan ZL; Bydon A
J Neurosurg Spine; 2010 Dec; 13(6):688-94. PubMed ID: 21121745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Does pedicle screw fixation of the subaxial cervical spine provide adequate stabilization in a multilevel vertebral body fracture model? An in vitro biomechanical study.
Duff J; Hussain MM; Klocke N; Harris JA; Yandamuri SS; Bobinski L; Daniel RT; Bucklen BS
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2018 Mar; 53():72-78. PubMed ID: 29455101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Biomechanical comparison of two-level cervical locking posterior screw/rod and hook/rod techniques.
Espinoza-Larios A; Ames CP; Chamberlain RH; Sonntag VK; Dickman CA; Crawford NR
Spine J; 2007; 7(2):194-204. PubMed ID: 17321969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Pedicle screws can be 4 times stronger than lateral mass screws for insertion in the midcervical spine: a biomechanical study on strength of fixation.
Ito Z; Higashino K; Kato S; Kim SS; Wong E; Yoshioka K; Hutton WC
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2014 Apr; 27(2):80-5. PubMed ID: 22373932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Biomechanical comparison of transfacet screws to lateral mass screw-rod constructs in the lower cervical spine.
Tong J; Ji W; Zhou R; Huang Z; Liu S; Zhu Q
Eur Spine J; 2016 Jun; 25(6):1787-93. PubMed ID: 26530298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: the effect of various instrumentation techniques on the flexibility of the lumbar spine.
Harris BM; Hilibrand AS; Savas PE; Pellegrino A; Vaccaro AR; Siegler S; Albert TJ
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2004 Feb; 29(4):E65-70. PubMed ID: 15094547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Biomechanical evaluation of a newly developed monocortical expansion screw for use in anterior internal fixation of the cervical spine. In vitro comparison with two established internal fixation systems.
Richter M; Wilke HJ; Kluger P; Claes L; Puhl W
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1999 Feb; 24(3):207-12. PubMed ID: 10025014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Biomechanical analysis of screw constructs for atlantoaxial fixation in cadavers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Du JY; Aichmair A; Kueper J; Wright T; Lebl DR
J Neurosurg Spine; 2015 Feb; 22(2):151-61. PubMed ID: 25478824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Biomechanical analysis of rigid stabilization techniques for three-column injury in the lower cervical spine.
Bozkus H; Ames CP; Chamberlain RH; Nottmeier EW; Sonntag VK; Papadopoulos SM; Crawford NR
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2005 Apr; 30(8):915-22. PubMed ID: 15834336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Biomechanical comparison of transarticular facet screws to lateral mass plates in two-level instrumentations of the cervical spine.
DalCanto RA; Lieberman I; Inceoglu S; Kayanja M; Ferrara L
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2005 Apr; 30(8):897-2. PubMed ID: 15834333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Biomechanical evaluation of an atlantoaxial lateral mass fusion cage with C1-C2 pedicle fixation.
Li S; Ni B; Xie N; Wang M; Guo X; Zhang F; Wang J; Zhao W
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2010 Jun; 35(14):E624-32. PubMed ID: 20505567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Biomechanical evaluation of diagonal fixation in pedicle screw instrumentation.
Lim TH; Kim JG; Fujiwara A; Yoon TT; Lee SC; Ha JW; An HS
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2001 Nov; 26(22):2498-503. PubMed ID: 11707718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Paravertebral foramen screw fixation for posterior cervical spine fusion: biomechanical study and description of a novel technique.
Maki S; Aramomi M; Matsuura Y; Furuya T; Ota M; Iijima Y; Saito J; Suzuki T; Mannoji C; Takahashi K; Yamazaki M; Koda M
J Neurosurg Spine; 2017 Oct; 27(4):415-420. PubMed ID: 28498072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A pedicle screw system and a lamina hook system provide similar primary and long-term stability: a biomechanical in vitro study with quasi-static and dynamic loading conditions.
Wilke HJ; Kaiser D; Volkheimer D; Hackenbroch C; Püschel K; Rauschmann M
Eur Spine J; 2016 Sep; 25(9):2919-28. PubMed ID: 27405823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Placement of pedicle screws in the human cadaveric cervical spine: comparative accuracy of three techniques.
Ludwig SC; Kramer DL; Balderston RA; Vaccaro AR; Foley KF; Albert TJ
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2000 Jul; 25(13):1655-67. PubMed ID: 10870141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Biomechanical evaluation of translaminar facet joint fixation. A comparative study of poly-L-lactide pins, screws, and pedicle fixation.
Deguchi M; Cheng BC; Sato K; Matsuyama Y; Zdeblick TA
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1998 Jun; 23(12):1307-12; discussion 1313. PubMed ID: 9654619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A comparison of pedicle and lateral mass screw construct stiffnesses at the cervicothoracic junction: a biomechanical study.
Rhee JM; Kraiwattanapong C; Hutton WC
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2005 Nov; 30(21):E636-40. PubMed ID: 16261101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Biomechanical comparison of translaminar versus pedicle screws at T1 and T2 in long subaxial cervical constructs.
McGirt MJ; Sutter EG; Xu R; Sciubba DM; Wolinsky JP; Witham TF; Gokaslan ZL; Bydon A
Neurosurgery; 2009 Dec; 65(6 Suppl):167-72; discussion 172. PubMed ID: 19934991
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Biomechanical analysis comparing three C1-C2 transarticular screw salvaging fixation techniques.
Elgafy H; Potluri T; Goel VK; Foster S; Faizan A; Kulkarni N
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2010 Feb; 35(4):378-85. PubMed ID: 20081561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]