These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18335714)

  • 21. Biomechanics of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty.
    Ong KL; Kurtz SM; Manley MT; Rushton N; Mohammed NA; Field RE
    J Bone Joint Surg Br; 2006 Aug; 88(8):1110-5. PubMed ID: 16877617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Influence of Charnley hip neck-angle inclination on the stresses at stem/cement and bone/cement interfaces.
    Zaki M; Saad F; Al-Ebiary MN
    Biomed Mater Eng; 2002; 12(4):411-21. PubMed ID: 12652035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Assessment of femoral neck fracture risk for a novel proximal epiphyseal hip prosthesis.
    Cristofolini L; Juszczyk M; Taddei F; Field RE; Rushton N; Viceconti M
    Clin Biomech (Bristol); 2011 Jul; 26(6):585-91. PubMed ID: 21334123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Performance of the resurfaced hip. Part 1: the influence of the prosthesis size and positioning on the remodelling and fracture of the femoral neck.
    Dickinson AS; Taylor AC; Browne M
    Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2010; 224(3):427-39. PubMed ID: 20408488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A biomechanical study of the Birmingham mid head resection arthroplasty: effect of stem size on femoral neck fracture.
    Aghayan S; Shepherd DE; Davis ET
    Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2013 Aug; 227(8):913-8. PubMed ID: 23636766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Prediction of micromotion initiation of an implanted femur under physiological loads and constraints using the finite element method.
    Andreaus U; Colloca M
    Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2009 Jul; 223(5):589-605. PubMed ID: 19623912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. [Influence on load transfer of different femoral neck endoprostheses].
    Steinhauser E; Ellenrieder M; Gruber G; Busch R; Gradinger R; Mittelmeier W
    Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb; 2006; 144(4):386-93. PubMed ID: 16941296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Simulation of physiological loading in total hip replacements.
    Ramos A; Fonseca F; Simões JA
    J Biomech Eng; 2006 Aug; 128(4):579-87. PubMed ID: 16813449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Finite element modeling of resurfacing hip prosthesis: estimation of accuracy through experimental validation.
    Taddei F; Martelli S; Gill HS; Cristofolini L; Viceconti M
    J Biomech Eng; 2010 Feb; 132(2):021002. PubMed ID: 20370239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [FE-analysis of surface stresses for the tribological system in total hip prostheses].
    Behrens BA; Helms G; Pösse O; Nolte I; Meyer-Lindenberg A; Rittmann P; Windhagen H; Pressel T
    Biomed Tech (Berl); 2006 Dec; 51(5-6):367-70. PubMed ID: 17155874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Femoral component positioning in resurfacing arthroplasty--effects on cortical strains.
    Kummer FJ; Pereira G; Schachter AK; Jaffe WL
    Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis; 2009; 67(4):341-6. PubMed ID: 20001936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Finite element analysis of the resurfaced femoral head.
    Taylor M
    Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2006 Feb; 220(2):289-97. PubMed ID: 16669395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Stress shielding and stress concentration of contemporary epiphyseal hip prostheses.
    Cristofolini L; Juszczyk M; Taddei F; Field RE; Rushton N; Viceconti M
    Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2009 Jan; 223(1):27-44. PubMed ID: 19239065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The influence on strain shielding of material stiffness of press-fit femoral components.
    Simões JA; Vaz MA
    Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2002; 216(5):341-6. PubMed ID: 12365792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The effect of modular tapered fluted stems on proximal stress shielding in the human femur.
    Hnat WP; Conway JS; Malkani AL; Yakkanti MR; Voor MJ
    J Arthroplasty; 2009 Sep; 24(6):957-62. PubMed ID: 18848422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Influence of femur size and morphology on load transfer in the resurfaced femoral head: A large scale, multi-subject finite element study.
    Bryan R; Nair PB; Taylor M
    J Biomech; 2012 Jul; 45(11):1952-8. PubMed ID: 22704609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The biomechanical effect of notch size, notch location, and femur orientation on hip resurfacing failure.
    Morison Z; Olsen M; Higgins GA; Zdero R; Schemitsch EH
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2013 Aug; 60(8):2214-21. PubMed ID: 23481682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Femoral component neck fracture after failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty.
    Bos PK; van Biezen FC; Weinans H
    J Arthroplasty; 2011 Dec; 26(8):1570.e1-4. PubMed ID: 21397452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Strain distribution in the proximal femur with flexible composite and metallic femoral components under axial and torsional loads.
    Otani T; Whiteside LA; White SE
    J Biomed Mater Res; 1993 May; 27(5):575-85. PubMed ID: 8314810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. In vitro measurement of strain in the bone cement surrounding the femoral component of total hip replacements during simulated gait and stair-climbing.
    O'Connor DO; Burke DW; Jasty M; Sedlacek RC; Harris WH
    J Orthop Res; 1996 Sep; 14(5):769-77. PubMed ID: 8893771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.