These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15900950)

  • 1. Effect of a ventral slot procedure and of smooth or positive-profile threaded pins with polymethylmethacrylate fixation on intervertebral biomechanics at treated and adjacent canine cervical vertebral motion units.
    Koehler CL; Stover SM; LeCouteur RA; Schulz KS; Hawkins DA
    Am J Vet Res; 2005 Apr; 66(4):678-87. PubMed ID: 15900950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. In vitro biomechanical comparison of cervical disk arthroplasty, ventral slot procedure, and smooth pins with polymethylmethacrylate fixation at treated and adjacent canine cervical motion units.
    Adamo PF; Kobayashi H; Markel M; Vanderby R
    Vet Surg; 2007 Dec; 36(8):729-41. PubMed ID: 18067613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. In vitro biomechanical evaluations of screw-bar-polymethylmethacrylate and pin-polymethylmethacrylate internal fixation implants used to stabilize the vertebral motion unit of the fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae in vertebral column specimens from dogs.
    Hicks DG; Pitts MJ; Bagley RS; Vasavada A; Chen AV; Wininger FA; Simon JC
    Am J Vet Res; 2009 Jun; 70(6):719-26. PubMed ID: 19496660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effect of width of disk fenestration and a ventral slot on biomechanics of the canine C5-C6 vertebral motion unit.
    Fauber AE; Wade JA; Lipka AE; McCabe GP; Aper RL
    Am J Vet Res; 2006 Nov; 67(11):1844-8. PubMed ID: 17078744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Biomechanical Comparison of Locking Compression Plate versus Positive Profile Pins and Polymethylmethacrylate for Stabilization of the Canine Lumbar Vertebrae.
    Sturges BK; Kapatkin AS; Garcia TC; Anwer C; Fukuda S; Hitchens PL; Wisner T; Hayashi K; Stover SM
    Vet Surg; 2016 Apr; 45(3):309-18. PubMed ID: 27007649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effects of conventional and slanted ventral slot procedures on the biomechanical behavior of the C5-C6 vertebral motion unit in dogs.
    Yang H; Lambrechts NE; Lehner M; Adam GM; Packer RA; Moore TW; Main RP
    Am J Vet Res; 2016 Aug; 77(8):846-53. PubMed ID: 27463547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Biomechanical comparison between bicortical pin and monocortical screw/polymethylmethacrylate constructs in the cadaveric canine cervical vertebral column.
    Hettlich BF; Allen MJ; Pascetta D; Fosgate GT; Litsky AS
    Vet Surg; 2013 Aug; 42(6):693-700. PubMed ID: 23888877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effect of an intervertebral disk spacer on stiffness after monocortical screw/polymethylmethacrylate fixation in simulated and cadaveric canine cervical vertebral columns.
    Hettlich BF; Allen MJ; Glucksman GS; Fosgate GT; Litsky AS
    Vet Surg; 2014 Nov; 43(8):988-94. PubMed ID: 24512474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of Cervical Stabilization with Transpedicular Pins and Polymethylmethacrylate versus Transvertebral Body Polyaxial Screws with or without an Interbody Distractor in Dogs.
    Marinho PVT; Ferrigno CRA; Costa RCD; Pereira CAM; Rego MAF; Bregadioli T; Paes F
    Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol; 2022 Sep; 35(5):289-297. PubMed ID: 35772728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Biomechanical comparison of single- and two-level cervical arthroplasty versus arthrodesis: effect on adjacent-level spinal kinematics.
    Cunningham BW; Hu N; Zorn CM; McAfee PC
    Spine J; 2010 Apr; 10(4):341-9. PubMed ID: 20362252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Biomechanical assessment of the effects of vertebral distraction-fusion techniques on the adjacent segment of canine cervical vertebrae.
    Hakozaki T; Ichinohe T; Kanno N; Yogo T; Harada Y; Inaba T; Kasai Y; Hara Y
    Am J Vet Res; 2016 Nov; 77(11):1194-1199. PubMed ID: 27805449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Biomechanical comparison of adjacent segmental motion after ventral cervical fixation with varying angles of lordosis.
    Hwang SH; Kayanja M; Milks RA; Benzel EC
    Spine J; 2007; 7(2):216-21. PubMed ID: 17321972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. In Vitro Biomechanical Comparison of Four Different Ventral Surgical Procedures on the Canine Fourth-Fifth Cervical Vertebral Motion Unit.
    Hermann A; Voumard B; Waschk MA; Hettlich BF; Forterre F
    Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol; 2018 Nov; 31(6):413-421. PubMed ID: 30235472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Biomechanical comparison between pins and polymethylmethacrylate and the SOP locking plate system to stabilize canine lumbosacral fracture-luxation in flexion and extension.
    Nel JJ; Kat CJ; Coetzee GL; van Staden PJ
    Vet Surg; 2017 Aug; 46(6):789-796. PubMed ID: 28543304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An in vitro biomechanical comparison of a locking compression plate fixation and kerf cut cylinder fixation for ventral arthrodesis of the fourth and the fifth equine cervical vertebrae.
    Reardon RJ; Bailey R; Walmsley JP; Heller J; Lischer C
    Vet Surg; 2010 Dec; 39(8):980-90. PubMed ID: 20880140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Biomechanical Comparison of 2 Veterinary Locking Plates to Monocortical Screw/Polymethylmethacrylate Fixation in Canine Cadaveric Cervical Vertebral Column.
    Hettlich BF; Fosgate GT; Litsky AS
    Vet Surg; 2017 Jan; 46(1):95-102. PubMed ID: 27902850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Biomechanical study of canine spinal fracture fixation using pins or bone screws with polymethylmethacrylate.
    Garcia JN; Milthorpe BK; Russell D; Johnson KA
    Vet Surg; 1994; 23(5):322-9. PubMed ID: 7839589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Intervertebral kinematics of the cervical spine before, during, and after high-velocity low-amplitude manipulation.
    Anderst WJ; Gale T; LeVasseur C; Raj S; Gongaware K; Schneider M
    Spine J; 2018 Dec; 18(12):2333-2342. PubMed ID: 30142458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A new stand-alone cervical anterior interbody fusion device: biomechanical comparison with established anterior cervical fixation devices.
    Scholz M; Reyes PM; Schleicher P; Sawa AG; Baek S; Kandziora F; Marciano FF; Crawford NR
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Jan; 34(2):156-60. PubMed ID: 19139665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Disc replacement adjacent to cervical fusion: a biomechanical comparison of hybrid construct versus two-level fusion.
    Lee MJ; Dumonski M; Phillips FM; Voronov LI; Renner SM; Carandang G; Havey RM; Patwardhan AG
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2011 Nov; 36(23):1932-9. PubMed ID: 21289581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.