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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16139763)

  • 1. Femoral strain changes after total hip arthroplasty--patient-specific finite element analyses 12 years after operation.
    Lengsfeld M; Burchard R; Günther D; Pressel T; Schmitt J; Leppek R; Griss P
    Med Eng Phys; 2005 Oct; 27(8):649-54. PubMed ID: 16139763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of periprosthetic bone remodelling after implantation of anatomic and straight stem prostheses in total hip arthroplasty.
    Grochola LF; Habermann B; Mastrodomenico N; Kurth A
    Arch Orthop Trauma Surg; 2008 Apr; 128(4):383-92. PubMed ID: 18038142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Early aseptic loosening of the CF 30 femoral stem].
    Kovanda M; Havlícek V; Hudec J
    Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech; 2007 Feb; 74(1):59-64. PubMed ID: 17331456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Bone preserving level of osteotomy in short-stem total hip arthroplasty does not influence stress shielding dimensions - a comparing finite elements analysis.
    Burchard R; Braas S; Soost C; Graw JA; Schmitt J
    BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2017 Aug; 18(1):343. PubMed ID: 28784121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Strain adaptive bone remodelling: influence of the implantation technique.
    Behrens BA; Bouguecha A; Nolte I; Meyer-Lindenberg A; Stukenborg-Colsman C; Pressel T
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2008; 133():33-44. PubMed ID: 18376011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Finite element analysis of changes in femoral stresses after elite total hip arthroplasty].
    He RX; Luo YM; Yan SG; Wu HB
    Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2004 Sep; 84(18):1549-53. PubMed ID: 15500718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Finite element modeling of resurfacing hip prosthesis: estimation of accuracy through experimental validation.
    Taddei F; Martelli S; Gill HS; Cristofolini L; Viceconti M
    J Biomech Eng; 2010 Feb; 132(2):021002. PubMed ID: 20370239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Influence of changes in stem positioning on femoral loading after THR using a short-stemmed hip implant.
    Speirs AD; Heller MO; Taylor WR; Duda GN; Perka C
    Clin Biomech (Bristol); 2007 May; 22(4):431-9. PubMed ID: 17275151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Bone adaptation changes mechanical stress in the femur--a prospective two years follow up after Hüft-TEP implantation].
    Lengsfeld M; Günther D; Pressel T; Leppek R; Schmitt J; Griss P
    Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb; 2003; 141(5):526-30. PubMed ID: 14551838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Changes in strain distribution of loaded proximal femora caused by different types of cementless femoral stems.
    Decking R; Puhl W; Simon U; Claes LE
    Clin Biomech (Bristol); 2006 Jun; 21(5):495-501. PubMed ID: 16457913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Changes of the bone mineral density of proximal femur after hip resurfacing arthroplasty].
    Lian YY; Yoo MC; Pei FX; Cheng JQ; Feng W; Cho YJ; Kim GI; Chun SW
    Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2007 Aug; 45(16):1091-4. PubMed ID: 18005605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The uncemented isoelastic/isotitan total hip arthroplasty. A 10-15 years follow-up with bone mineral density evaluation.
    Nagi ON; Kumar S; Aggarwal S
    Acta Orthop Belg; 2006 Jan; 72(1):55-64. PubMed ID: 16570896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Cementless implant composition and femoral stress. A finite element analysis.
    Namba RS; Keyak JH; Kim AS; Vu LP; Skinner HB
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1998 Feb; (347):261-7. PubMed ID: 9520899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Study on design method for the individual anatomical hip joint endoprosthesis].
    Gong X; Kang L; Wang J
    Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi; 2008 Feb; 25(1):92-6. PubMed ID: 18435265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Biomechanical comparison of newly designed stemless prosthesis and conventional hip prosthesis--an experimental study.
    Tai CL; Lee MS; Chen WP; Hsieh PH; Lee PC; Shih CH
    Biomed Mater Eng; 2005; 15(3):239-49. PubMed ID: 15912004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Volumetric measurement of periprosthetic bone remodeling: prospective 5 years follow-up after cemented total hip arthroplasty.
    Burchard R; Leppek R; Schmitt J; Lengsfeld M
    Arch Orthop Trauma Surg; 2007 Jul; 127(5):361-8. PubMed ID: 17393176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Biomechanics of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty.
    Ong KL; Kurtz SM; Manley MT; Rushton N; Mohammed NA; Field RE
    J Bone Joint Surg Br; 2006 Aug; 88(8):1110-5. PubMed ID: 16877617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Relation between subject-specific hip joint loading, stress distribution in the proximal femur and bone mineral density changes after total hip replacement.
    Jonkers I; Sauwen N; Lenaerts G; Mulier M; Van der Perre G; Jaecques S
    J Biomech; 2008 Dec; 41(16):3405-13. PubMed ID: 19019372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of different hip prosthesis shapes considering micro-level bone remodeling and stress-shielding criteria using three-dimensional design space topology optimization.
    Boyle C; Kim IY
    J Biomech; 2011 Jun; 44(9):1722-8. PubMed ID: 21497816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Stress and strain analysis of the hip joint using FEM.
    Vaverka M; Návrat TS; Vrbka M; Florian Z; Fuis V
    Technol Health Care; 2006; 14(4-5):271-9. PubMed ID: 17065750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.