117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17545762)
1. The effect of simulated metastatic lytic lesions on proximal femoral strength.
Keyak JH; Kaneko TS; Skinner HB; Hoang BH
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2007 Jun; 459():139-45. PubMed ID: 17545762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Finite element analysis on fracture relevance as bone defect of proximal femur].
Zhang S; Tu CQ; Duan H; Min L; Zhou Y; Zhang SL; Jiang Y; Feng P
Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2011 Mar; 42(2):273-6, 279. PubMed ID: 21500571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Feasibility of a percutaneous technique for repairing proximal femora with simulated metastatic lesions.
Kaneko TS; Skinner HB; Keyak JH
Med Eng Phys; 2007 Jun; 29(5):594-601. PubMed ID: 16949854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of finite element analysis for prediction of the strength reduction due to metastatic lesions in the femoral neck.
Cheal EJ; Hipp JA; Hayes WC
J Biomech; 1993 Mar; 26(3):251-64. PubMed ID: 8468338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Lytic lesions in the femoral neck: Importance of location and evaluation of a novel minimally invasive repair technique.
Kaneko TS; Skinner HB; Keyak JH
J Orthop Res; 2008 Aug; 26(8):1127-32. PubMed ID: 18327790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. During sideways falls proximal femur fractures initiate in the superolateral cortex: evidence from high-speed video of simulated fractures.
de Bakker PM; Manske SL; Ebacher V; Oxland TR; Cripton PA; Guy P
J Biomech; 2009 Aug; 42(12):1917-25. PubMed ID: 19524929
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Investigation into the effect of varus-valgus orientation on load transfer in the resurfaced femoral head: a multi-femur finite element analysis.
Radcliffe IA; Taylor M
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2007 Aug; 22(7):780-6. PubMed ID: 17544555
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Prediction of the pathological fracture risk during stance and fall-loading configurations for metastases in the proximal femur, using a computed tomography-based finite element method.
Shinoda Y; Kobayashi H; Kaneko M; Ohashi S; Bessho M; Hayashi N; Oka H; Imanishi J; Sawada R; Ogura K; Tanaka S; Haga N; Kawano H
J Orthop Sci; 2019 Nov; 24(6):1074-1080. PubMed ID: 31521453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Predicting failure load of the femur with simulated osteolytic defects using noninvasive imaging technique in a simplified load case.
Lee T
Ann Biomed Eng; 2007 Apr; 35(4):642-50. PubMed ID: 17286207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Determination of strength of femoral neck in patients with hip fracture].
Wang XG
Zhongguo Gu Shang; 2008 Sep; 21(9):647-8. PubMed ID: 19105268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The assessment of the risk of fracture in femora with metastatic lesions: comparing case-specific finite element analyses with predictions by clinical experts.
Derikx LC; van Aken JB; Janssen D; Snyers A; van der Linden YM; Verdonschot N; Tanck E
J Bone Joint Surg Br; 2012 Aug; 94(8):1135-42. PubMed ID: 22844058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Relationship between femoral head size and distance to lesser trochanter.
Sproul RC; Reynolds HM; Lotz JC; Ries MD
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2007 Aug; 461():122-4. PubMed ID: 17414164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Modification to Mirels scoring system location component improves fracture prediction for metastatic disease of the proximal femur.
Amendola RL; Miller MA; Kaupp SM; Cleary RJ; Damron TA; Mann KA
BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2023 Jan; 24(1):65. PubMed ID: 36694156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Femoral neck fracture following hip resurfacing: the effect of alignment of the femoral component.
Davis ET; Olsen M; Zdero R; Waddell JP; Schemitsch EH
J Bone Joint Surg Br; 2008 Nov; 90(11):1522-7. PubMed ID: 18978277
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Relationships between femoral strength evaluated by nonlinear finite element analysis and BMD, material distribution and geometric morphology.
Gong H; Zhang M; Fan Y; Kwok WL; Leung PC
Ann Biomed Eng; 2012 Jul; 40(7):1575-85. PubMed ID: 22258889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Structural consequences of endosteal metastatic lesions in long bones.
Hipp JA; McBroom RJ; Cheal EJ; Hayes WC
J Orthop Res; 1989; 7(6):828-37. PubMed ID: 2795323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of local density changes on the failure load of the proximal femur.
Oden ZM; Selvitelli DM; Bouxsein ML
J Orthop Res; 1999 Sep; 17(5):661-7. PubMed ID: 10569474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effect of simulated metastatic lesions on the biomechanical behavior of the proximal femur.
Benca E; Reisinger A; Patsch JM; Hirtler L; Synek A; Stenicka S; Windhager R; Mayr W; Pahr DH
J Orthop Res; 2017 Nov; 35(11):2407-2414. PubMed ID: 28240373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Prediction of the strength and fracture location of the femoral neck by CT-based finite-element method: a preliminary study on patients with hip fracture.
Bessho M; Ohnishi I; Okazaki H; Sato W; Kominami H; Matsunaga S; Nakamura K
J Orthop Sci; 2004; 9(6):545-50. PubMed ID: 16228668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Difference in femoral head and neck material properties between osteoarthritis and osteoporosis.
Sun SS; Ma HL; Liu CL; Huang CH; Cheng CK; Wei HW
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2008; 23 Suppl 1():S39-47. PubMed ID: 18187243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
