394 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17413473)
1. Magnetic resonance imaging clarity of the Bryan, Prodisc-C, Prestige LP, and PCM cervical arthroplasty devices.
Sekhon LH; Duggal N; Lynch JJ; Haid RW; Heller JG; Riew KD; Seex K; Anderson PA
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Mar; 32(6):673-80. PubMed ID: 17413473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement.
Auerbach JD; Jones KJ; Fras CI; Balderston JR; Rushton SA; Chin KR
Spine J; 2008; 8(5):711-6. PubMed ID: 17983843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Clinical outcomes of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with 24-month follow-up.
Sasso RC; Smucker JD; Hacker RJ; Heller JG
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2007 Oct; 20(7):481-91. PubMed ID: 17912124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis.
Anderson PA; Sasso RC; Riew KD
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 May; 33(12):1305-12. PubMed ID: 18496341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Analysis of in vivo kinematics of 3 different cervical devices: Bryan disc, ProDisc-C, and Prestige LP disc.
Kowalczyk I; Lazaro BC; Fink M; Rabin D; Duggal N
J Neurosurg Spine; 2011 Dec; 15(6):630-5. PubMed ID: 21905776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease.
Murrey D; Janssen M; Delamarter R; Goldstein J; Zigler J; Tay B; Darden B
Spine J; 2009 Apr; 9(4):275-86. PubMed ID: 18774751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. An analysis of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc arthroplasty: a novel morphologic classification of an ossified mass.
Jin YJ; Park SB; Kim MJ; Kim KJ; Kim HJ
Spine J; 2013 Apr; 13(4):408-20. PubMed ID: 23332520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Factors affecting reoperations after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion within and outside of a Federal Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical disc replacement trial.
Singh K; Phillips FM; Park DK; Pelton MA; An HS; Goldberg EJ
Spine J; 2012 May; 12(5):372-8. PubMed ID: 22425784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparative charge analysis of one- and two-level lumbar total disc arthroplasty versus circumferential lumbar fusion.
Levin DA; Bendo JA; Quirno M; Errico T; Goldstein J; Spivak J
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Dec; 32(25):2905-9. PubMed ID: 18246016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system: a preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings.
Beastall J; Karadimas E; Siddiqui M; Nicol M; Hughes J; Smith F; Wardlaw D
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Mar; 32(6):685-90. PubMed ID: 17413475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Magnetic resonance T2 image signal intensity ratio and clinical manifestation predict prognosis after surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
Zhang YZ; Shen Y; Wang LF; Ding WY; Xu JX; He J
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2010 May; 35(10):E396-9. PubMed ID: 20393392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The Prestige cervical disc replacement.
Traynelis VC
Spine J; 2004; 4(6 Suppl):310S-314S. PubMed ID: 15541682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Functional evaluation of the cervical spine after Bryan artificial disc replacement].
Tian W; Liu B; Li Q; Hu L; Li ZY; Yuan Q; Han X
Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2008 Mar; 46(5):338-41. PubMed ID: 18785527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Biomaterial optimization in total disc arthroplasty.
Hallab N; Link HD; McAfee PC
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Oct; 28(20):S139-52. PubMed ID: 14560185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Design limitations of Bryan disc arthroplasty.
Fong SY; DuPlessis SJ; Casha S; Hurlbert RJ
Spine J; 2006; 6(3):233-41. PubMed ID: 16651216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cervical arthroplasty in a patient with Klippel-Feil syndrome.
Yi S; Kim SH; Shin HC; Kim KN; Yoon DH
Acta Neurochir (Wien); 2007 Aug; 149(8):805-9; discussion 809. PubMed ID: 17616843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with fusion in a workers' compensation population.
Steinmetz MP; Patel R; Traynelis V; Resnick DK; Anderson PA
Neurosurgery; 2008 Oct; 63(4):741-7; discussion 747. PubMed ID: 18981885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
