98 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18067613)
1. In vitro biomechanical comparison of cervical disk arthroplasty, ventral slot procedure, and smooth pins with polymethylmethacrylate fixation at treated and adjacent canine cervical motion units.
Adamo PF; Kobayashi H; Markel M; Vanderby R
Vet Surg; 2007 Dec; 36(8):729-41. PubMed ID: 18067613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of a ventral slot procedure and of smooth or positive-profile threaded pins with polymethylmethacrylate fixation on intervertebral biomechanics at treated and adjacent canine cervical vertebral motion units.
Koehler CL; Stover SM; LeCouteur RA; Schulz KS; Hawkins DA
Am J Vet Res; 2005 Apr; 66(4):678-87. PubMed ID: 15900950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. In vitro biomechanical evaluations of screw-bar-polymethylmethacrylate and pin-polymethylmethacrylate internal fixation implants used to stabilize the vertebral motion unit of the fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae in vertebral column specimens from dogs.
Hicks DG; Pitts MJ; Bagley RS; Vasavada A; Chen AV; Wininger FA; Simon JC
Am J Vet Res; 2009 Jun; 70(6):719-26. PubMed ID: 19496660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effect of width of disk fenestration and a ventral slot on biomechanics of the canine C5-C6 vertebral motion unit.
Fauber AE; Wade JA; Lipka AE; McCabe GP; Aper RL
Am J Vet Res; 2006 Nov; 67(11):1844-8. PubMed ID: 17078744
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Intervertebral biomechanics of locking compression plate monocortical fixation of the canine cervical spine.
Agnello KA; Kapatkin AS; Garcia TC; Hayashi K; Welihozkiy AT; Stover SM
Vet Surg; 2010 Dec; 39(8):991-1000. PubMed ID: 21133955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Biomechanical comparison between bicortical pin and monocortical screw/polymethylmethacrylate constructs in the cadaveric canine cervical vertebral column.
Hettlich BF; Allen MJ; Pascetta D; Fosgate GT; Litsky AS
Vet Surg; 2013 Aug; 42(6):693-700. PubMed ID: 23888877
[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. Biomechanical comparison of adjacent segmental motion after ventral cervical fixation with varying angles of lordosis.
Hwang SH; Kayanja M; Milks RA; Benzel EC
Spine J; 2007; 7(2):216-21. PubMed ID: 17321972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Biomechanical study on effect of polymethylmethacrylate augmentation on cervical stability after anterior cervical interbody fusion].
Chen C; Zhao W; Sun P; Wu C; Qu D; Ouyang J
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2010 Oct; 24(10):1174-9. PubMed ID: 21046801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effects of conventional and slanted ventral slot procedures on the biomechanical behavior of the C5-C6 vertebral motion unit in dogs.
Yang H; Lambrechts NE; Lehner M; Adam GM; Packer RA; Moore TW; Main RP
Am J Vet Res; 2016 Aug; 77(8):846-53. PubMed ID: 27463547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Cervical arthroplasty in two dogs with disk-associated cervical spondylomyelopathy.
Adamo PF
J Am Vet Med Assoc; 2011 Sep; 239(6):808-17. PubMed ID: 21916764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of Cervical Stabilization with Transpedicular Pins and Polymethylmethacrylate versus Transvertebral Body Polyaxial Screws with or without an Interbody Distractor in Dogs.
Marinho PVT; Ferrigno CRA; Costa RCD; Pereira CAM; Rego MAF; Bregadioli T; Paes F
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol; 2022 Sep; 35(5):289-297. PubMed ID: 35772728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Cervical spine arthroplasty biomechanics.
Puttlitz CM; DiAngelo DJ
Neurosurg Clin N Am; 2005 Oct; 16(4):589-94, v. PubMed ID: 16326281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Biomechanical evaluation of acetabular cup implantation in cementless total hip arthroplasty.
Margalit KA; Hayashi K; Jackson J; Kim SY; Garcia TC; Wiggans KT; Aiken S; Stover SM
Vet Surg; 2010 Oct; 39(7):818-23. PubMed ID: 20723192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Surgical management of canine cervical spondylopathy.
McKee M; Miller A
Vet Rec; 1996 Apr; 138(14):340. PubMed ID: 8730684
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Biomechanical comparison between pins and polymethylmethacrylate and the SOP locking plate system to stabilize canine lumbosacral fracture-luxation in flexion and extension.
Nel JJ; Kat CJ; Coetzee GL; van Staden PJ
Vet Surg; 2017 Aug; 46(6):789-796. PubMed ID: 28543304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Biomechanical comparison of three different types of C7 fixation techniques.
Hong JT; Tomoyuki T; Udayakumar R; Espinoza Orías AA; Inoue N; An HS
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2011 Mar; 36(5):393-8. PubMed ID: 21325933
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Load sharing and stabilization effects of anterior cervical devices.
Cheng BC; Burns P; Pirris S; Welch WC
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2009 Dec; 22(8):571-7. PubMed ID: 19956031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
