124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16813439)
1. Comparison of cervical disk implants and cervical disk fusion treatments in human cadaveric models.
Davies MA; Bryant SC; Larsen SP; Murrey DB; Nussman DS; Laxer EB; Darden BV
J Biomech Eng; 2006 Aug; 128(4):481-6. PubMed ID: 16813439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Relaxation of forces needed to distract cervical vertebrae after discectomy: a biomechanical study.
Aryan HE; Newman CB; Lu DC; Hu SS; Tay BK; Bradford DS; Puttlitz CM; Ames CP
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2009 Apr; 22(2):100-4. PubMed ID: 19342931
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Dynamic characteristics of the intact, fused, and prosthetic-replaced cervical disk.
Dahl MC; Rouleau JP; Papadopoulos S; Nuckley DJ; Ching RP
J Biomech Eng; 2006 Dec; 128(6):809-14. PubMed ID: 17154679
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Biomechanical analysis of the range of motion after placement of a two-level cervical ProDisc-C versus hybrid construct.
Cho BY; Lim J; Sim HB; Park J
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2010 Sep; 35(19):1769-76. PubMed ID: 20395885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Multidirectional testing of one- and two-level ProDisc-L versus simulated fusions.
Panjabi M; Henderson G; Abjornson C; Yue J
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 May; 32(12):1311-9. PubMed ID: 17515820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of pressure effects on adjacent disk levels after 2-level lumbar constructs: fusion, hybrid, and total disk replacement.
Nunley PD; Jawahar A; Mukherjee DP; Ogden A; Khan Z; Kerr EJ; Cavanaugh DA
Surg Neurol; 2008 Sep; 70(3):247-51; discussion 251. PubMed ID: 18617238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Effect of an interspinous implant on loads in the lumbar spine.
Rohlmann A; Zander T; Burra NK; Bergmann G
Biomed Tech (Berl); 2005 Oct; 50(10):343-7. PubMed ID: 16300050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Prospective, randomized trial of metal-on-metal artificial lumbar disc replacement: initial results for treatment of discogenic pain.
Sasso RC; Foulk DM; Hahn M
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Jan; 33(2):123-31. PubMed ID: 18197095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Finite element application in implant research for treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease.
Zhang QH; Teo EC
Med Eng Phys; 2008 Dec; 30(10):1246-56. PubMed ID: 18804398
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Stress analysis of the interface between cervical vertebrae end plates and the Bryan, Prestige LP, and ProDisc-C cervical disc prostheses: an in vivo image-based finite element study.
Lin CY; Kang H; Rouleau JP; Hollister SJ; Marca FL
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Jul; 34(15):1554-60. PubMed ID: 19564765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The kinematics of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus artificial cervical disc: a pilot study.
Rabin D; Pickett GE; Bisnaire L; Duggal N
Neurosurgery; 2007 Sep; 61(3 Suppl):100-4; discussion 104-5. PubMed ID: 17876239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Full-endoscopic cervical posterior foraminotomy for the operation of lateral disc herniations using 5.9-mm endoscopes: a prospective, randomized, controlled study.
Ruetten S; Komp M; Merk H; Godolias G
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Apr; 33(9):940-8. PubMed ID: 18427313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients.
Sasso RC; Smucker JD; Hacker RJ; Heller JG
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Dec; 32(26):2933-40; discussion 2941-2. PubMed ID: 18091483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Motion analysis of bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion: results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial.
Sasso RC; Best NM; Metcalf NH; Anderson PA
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2008 Aug; 21(6):393-9. PubMed ID: 18679092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Segmental malalignment with the Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis--does it occur?
Sears WR; Sekhon LH; Duggal N; Williamson OD
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2007 Feb; 20(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 17285044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Advantages and disadvantages of nonfusion technology in spine surgery.
Huang RC; Girardi FP; Lim MR; Cammisa FP
Orthop Clin North Am; 2005 Jul; 36(3):263-9. PubMed ID: 15950686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Biomechanical analysis of rotational motions after disc arthroplasty: implications for patients with adult deformities.
McAfee PC; Cunningham BW; Hayes V; Sidiqi F; Dabbah M; Sefter JC; Hu N; Beatson H
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2006 Sep; 31(19 Suppl):S152-60. PubMed ID: 16946633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Investigation of the intervertebral disc and fused joint dynamics through experimental modal analysis and the receptance coupling method.
Malekian M; Trieu D; Owoc JS; Park SS; Hunter CJ
J Biomech Eng; 2010 Apr; 132(4):041004. PubMed ID: 20387967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
