337 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18176161)
1. Biomechanical analysis of plate osteosynthesis systems for proximal humerus fractures.
Lever JP; Aksenov SA; Zdero R; Ahn H; McKee MD; Schemitsch EH
J Orthop Trauma; 2008 Jan; 22(1):23-9. PubMed ID: 18176161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Biomechanical stability of different fixation constructs for ORIF of radial neck fractures.
Capo JT; Svach D; Ahsgar J; Orillaza NS; Sabatino CT
Orthopedics; 2008 Oct; 31(10):. PubMed ID: 19226014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The biomechanics of ipsilateral intertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures: a comparison of 5 fracture fixation techniques.
McConnell A; Zdero R; Syed K; Peskun C; Schemitsch E
J Orthop Trauma; 2008 Sep; 22(8):517-24. PubMed ID: 18758281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Biomechanical comparative study of three types of osteosynthesis in the treatment of supra and intercondylar fractures of the humerus in adults].
Fornasiéri C; Staub C; Tourné Y; Rumelhart C; Saragaglia D
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot; 1997; 83(3):237-42. PubMed ID: 9255359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Biomechanical analysis of blade plate versus locking plate fixation for a proximal humerus fracture: comparison using cadaveric and synthetic humeri.
Siffri PC; Peindl RD; Coley ER; Norton J; Connor PM; Kellam JF
J Orthop Trauma; 2006 Sep; 20(8):547-54. PubMed ID: 16990726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A biomechanical comparison of plate configuration in distal humerus fractures.
Arnander MW; Reeves A; MacLeod IA; Pinto TM; Khaleel A
J Orthop Trauma; 2008; 22(5):332-6. PubMed ID: 18448987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A biomechanical comparison of locked plate fixation with percutaneous insertion capability versus the angled blade plate in a subtrochanteric fracture gap model.
Crist BD; Khalafi A; Hazelwood SJ; Lee MA
J Orthop Trauma; 2009 Oct; 23(9):622-7. PubMed ID: 19897982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Fixation of extra-articular distal humerus fractures using one locking plate versus two reconstruction plates: a laboratory study.
Tejwani NC; Murthy A; Park J; McLaurin TM; Egol KA; Kummer FJ
J Trauma; 2009 Mar; 66(3):795-9. PubMed ID: 19276755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Biomechanical comparison of a unique locking plate versus a standard plate for internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures in a cadaveric model.
Walsh S; Reindl R; Harvey E; Berry G; Beckman L; Steffen T
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2006 Dec; 21(10):1027-31. PubMed ID: 16919375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Locked plate fixation of osteoporotic humeral shaft fractures: are two locking screws per segment enough?
Hak DJ; Althausen P; Hazelwood SJ
J Orthop Trauma; 2010 Apr; 24(4):207-11. PubMed ID: 20335752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Are locking screws advantageous with plate fixation of humeral shaft fractures? A biomechanical analysis of synthetic and cadaveric bone.
O'Toole RV; Andersen RC; Vesnovsky O; Alexander M; Topoleski LD; Nascone JW; Sciadini MF; Turen C; Eglseder WA
J Orthop Trauma; 2008; 22(10):709-15. PubMed ID: 18978547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Biomechanical comparison of two different periarticular plating systems for stabilization of complex distal humerus fractures.
Schwartz A; Oka R; Odell T; Mahar A
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2006 Nov; 21(9):950-5. PubMed ID: 16782245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Biomechanical strength of the Peri-Loc proximal tibial plate: a comparison of all-locked versus hybrid locked/nonlocked screw configurations.
Estes C; Rhee P; Shrader MW; Csavina K; Jacofsky MC; Jacofsky DJ
J Orthop Trauma; 2008; 22(5):312-6. PubMed ID: 18448984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Biomechanical evaluation of 3-part proximal humerus fractures: a cadaveric study.
Gillespie RJ; Ramachandran V; Lea ES; Vallier HA
Orthopedics; 2009 Nov; 32(11):816. PubMed ID: 19902894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Locked vs. unlocked plate osteosynthesis of the proximal humerus - a biomechanical study.
Seide K; Triebe J; Faschingbauer M; Schulz AP; Püschel K; Mehrtens G; Jürgens Ch
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2007 Feb; 22(2):176-82. PubMed ID: 17134800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Proximal humerus fracture rotational stability after fixation using a locking plate or a fixed-angle locked nail: the role of implant stiffness.
Foruria AM; Carrascal MT; Revilla C; Munuera L; Sanchez-Sotelo J
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2010 May; 25(4):307-11. PubMed ID: 20153916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Biomechanical considerations in plate osteosynthesis: the effect of plate-to-bone compression with and without angular screw stability.
Stoffel K; Lorenz KU; Kuster MS
J Orthop Trauma; 2007 Jul; 21(6):362-8. PubMed ID: 17620993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A mechanical comparison of the locking compression plate (LCP) and the low contact-dynamic compression plate (DCP) in an osteoporotic bone model.
Snow M; Thompson G; Turner PG
J Orthop Trauma; 2008 Feb; 22(2):121-5. PubMed ID: 18349780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Relationship of cortical thickness of the proximal humerus and pullout strength of a locked plate and screw construct.
Wallace MJ; Bledsoe G; Moed BR; Israel HA; Kaar SG
J Orthop Trauma; 2012 Apr; 26(4):222-5. PubMed ID: 22207205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Biomechanical analysis of distal femur fracture fixation: fixed-angle screw-plate construct versus condylar blade plate.
Higgins TF; Pittman G; Hines J; Bachus KN
J Orthop Trauma; 2007 Jan; 21(1):43-6. PubMed ID: 17211268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
