230 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15928552)
1. Limitations of the cervical porcine spine in evaluating spinal implants in comparison with human cervical spinal segments: a biomechanical in vitro comparison of porcine and human cervical spine specimens with different instrumentation techniques.
Schmidt R; Richter M; Claes L; Puhl W; Wilke HJ
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2005 Jun; 30(11):1275-82. PubMed ID: 15928552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Biomechanics of an integrated interbody device versus ACDF anterior locking plate in a single-level cervical spine fusion construct.
Stein MI; Nayak AN; Gaskins RB; Cabezas AF; Santoni BG; Castellvi AE
Spine J; 2014 Jan; 14(1):128-36. PubMed ID: 24231054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Biomechanical comparison of anterior cervical spine instrumentation techniques with and without supplemental posterior fusion after different corpectomy and discectomy combinations: Laboratory investigation.
Setzer M; Eleraky M; Johnson WM; Aghayev K; Tran ND; Vrionis FD
J Neurosurg Spine; 2012 Jun; 16(6):579-84. PubMed ID: 22423633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The stabilizing potential of anterior, posterior and combined techniques for the reconstruction of a 2-level cervical corpectomy model: biomechanical study and first results of ATPS prototyping.
Koller H; Schmidt R; Mayer M; Hitzl W; Zenner J; Midderhoff S; Graf N; Resch H; Wilke HJ
Eur Spine J; 2010 Dec; 19(12):2137-48. PubMed ID: 20589516
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Biomechanical comparison of cervical spine reconstructive techniques after a multilevel corpectomy of the cervical spine.
Singh K; Vaccaro AR; Kim J; Lorenz EP; Lim TH; An HS
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Oct; 28(20):2352-8; discussion 2358. PubMed ID: 14560082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Pedicle screws enhance primary stability in multilevel cervical corpectomies: biomechanical in vitro comparison of different implants including constrained and nonconstrained posterior instumentations.
Schmidt R; Wilke HJ; Claes L; Puhl W; Richter M
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Aug; 28(16):1821-8. PubMed ID: 12923469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Biomechanical testing of circumferential instrumentation after cervical multilevel corpectomy.
Hartmann S; Thomé C; Keiler A; Fritsch H; Hegewald AA; Schmölz W
Eur Spine J; 2015 Dec; 24(12):2788-98. PubMed ID: 26233243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Biomechanical comparison of anterior, posterior, and circumferential fixation after one-level anterior cervical corpectomy in the human cadaveric spine.
Karam YR; Dahdaleh NS; Magnetta MJ; Kim BS; Lim TH; Serhan H; Torner JC; Hitchon PW
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2011 Apr; 36(7):E455-60. PubMed ID: 20847712
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Biomechanical evaluation of a new modular rod-screw implant system for posterior instrumentation of the occipito-cervical spine: in-vitro comparison with two established implant systems.
Richter M; Wilke HJ; Kluger P; Neller S; Claes L; Puhl W
Eur Spine J; 2000 Oct; 9(5):417-25. PubMed ID: 11057536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. A zero-profile anchored spacer in multilevel cervical anterior interbody fusion: biomechanical comparison to established fixation techniques.
Scholz M; Schleicher P; Pabst S; Kandziora F
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2015 Apr; 40(7):E375-80. PubMed ID: 25584947
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Biomechanical comparison of a two-level anterior discectomy and a one-level corpectomy, combined with fusion and anterior plate reconstruction in the cervical spine.
Aghayev K; Doulgeris JJ; Gonzalez-Blohm SA; Eleraky M; Lee WE; Vrionis FD
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2014 Jan; 29(1):21-5. PubMed ID: 24239024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Enhancement of stability following anterior cervical corpectomy: a biomechanical study.
Singh K; Vaccaro AR; Kim J; Lorenz EP; Lim TH; An HS
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2004 Apr; 29(8):845-9. PubMed ID: 15082982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A comparative biomechanical analysis of spinal instability and instrumentation of the cervicothoracic junction: an in vitro human cadaveric model.
Prybis BG; Tortolani PJ; Hu N; Zorn CM; McAfee PC; Cunningham BW
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2007 May; 20(3):233-8. PubMed ID: 17473645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
