485 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17088197)
1. Cervical pedicle screws vs. lateral mass screws: uniplanar fatigue analysis and residual pullout strengths.
Johnston TL; Karaikovic EE; Lautenschlager EP; Marcu D
Spine J; 2006; 6(6):667-72. PubMed ID: 17088197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws.
Santoni BG; Hynes RA; McGilvray KC; Rodriguez-Canessa G; Lyons AS; Henson MA; Womack WJ; Puttlitz CM
Spine J; 2009 May; 9(5):366-73. PubMed ID: 18790684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Loosening of sacral screw fixation under in vitro fatigue loading.
Lu WW; Zhu Q; Holmes AD; Luk KD; Zhong S; Leong JC
J Orthop Res; 2000 Sep; 18(5):808-14. PubMed ID: 11117304
[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. Biomechanical comparison of cervical transfacet pedicle screws versus pedicle screws.
Liu GY; Xu RM; Ma WH; Sun SH; Huang L; Ying JW; Jiang WY
Chin Med J (Engl); 2008 Aug; 121(15):1390-3. PubMed ID: 18959115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Primary pedicle screw augmentation in osteoporotic lumbar vertebrae: biomechanical analysis of pedicle fixation strength.
Burval DJ; McLain RF; Milks R; Inceoglu S
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 May; 32(10):1077-83. PubMed ID: 17471088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Pedicle screw fixation strength: pullout versus insertional torque.
Inceoglu S; Ferrara L; McLain RF
Spine J; 2004; 4(5):513-8. PubMed ID: 15363421
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Biomechanical evaluation of posterior screw fixation in cadaveric cervical spines.
Papagelopoulos PJ; Currier BL; Neale PG; Hokari Y; Berglund LJ; Larson DR; Fisher DR; An KN
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2003 Jun; (411):13-24. PubMed ID: 12782855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [A static mechanical comparison between two transarticular internal fixation techniques in the lower cervical spine].
Liu GY; Xu RM; Ma WH; Sun SH; Huang L; Yin JW; Jiang WY
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2007 Jun; 87(23):1599-602. PubMed ID: 17803847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A titanium expandable pedicle screw improves initial pullout strength as compared with standard pedicle screws.
Vishnubhotla S; McGarry WB; Mahar AT; Gelb DE
Spine J; 2011 Aug; 11(8):777-81. PubMed ID: 21802996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The impact of a distal expansion mechanism added to a standard pedicle screw on pullout resistance. A biomechanical study.
Koller H; Zenner J; Hitzl W; Resch H; Stephan D; Augat P; Penzkofer R; Korn G; Kendell A; Meier O; Mayer M
Spine J; 2013 May; 13(5):532-41. PubMed ID: 23415899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Lateral mass versus hybrid construct for cervical laminectomy and fusion.
Regan CM; Emmanuel S; Hornik C; Weinhold P; Lim MR
Orthopedics; 2013 Apr; 36(4):e484-8. PubMed ID: 23590790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A biomechanical evaluation of three revision screw strategies for failed lateral mass fixation.
Hostin RA; Wu C; Perra JH; Polly DW; Akesen B; Wroblewski JM
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Oct; 33(22):2415-21. PubMed ID: 18923316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Characteristics of immediate and fatigue strength of a dual-threaded pedicle screw in cadaveric spines.
Brasiliense LB; Lazaro BC; Reyes PM; Newcomb AG; Turner JL; Crandall DG; Crawford NR
Spine J; 2013 Aug; 13(8):947-56. PubMed ID: 23602373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Biomechanical comparison of anatomic trajectory pedicle screw versus injectable calcium sulfate graft-augmented pedicle screw for salvage in cadaveric thoracic bone.
Derincek A; Wu C; Mehbod A; Transfeldt EE
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2006 Jun; 19(4):286-91. PubMed ID: 16778665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cervical pedicle screws vs. lateral mass screws: uniplanar fatigue analysis and residual pullout strengths.
Dickerman RD; Reynolds AS; Stevens Q; Zigler J
Spine J; 2007; 7(3):384. PubMed ID: 17482126
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Pullout resistance of thoracic extrapedicular screws used as a salvage procedure.
Yüksel KZ; Adams MS; Chamberlain RH; Potocnjak M; Park SC; Sonntag VK; Crawford NR
Spine J; 2007; 7(3):286-91. PubMed ID: 17482111
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
