232 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19029615)
1. Comparison of the load-sharing characteristics between pedicle-based dynamic and rigid rod devices.
Ahn YH; Chen WM; Lee KY; Park KW; Lee SJ
Biomed Mater; 2008 Dec; 3(4):044101. PubMed ID: 19029615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effects of nonlinearity in the materials used for the semi-rigid pedicle screw systems on biomechanical behaviors of the lumbar spine after surgery.
Kim H; Lim DH; Oh HJ; Lee KY; Lee SJ
Biomed Mater; 2011 Oct; 6(5):055005. PubMed ID: 21849724
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Biomechanical assessment of a PEEK rod system for semi-rigid fixation of lumbar fusion constructs.
Gornet MF; Chan FW; Coleman JC; Murrell B; Nockels RP; Taylor BA; Lanman TH; Ochoa JA
J Biomech Eng; 2011 Aug; 133(8):081009. PubMed ID: 21950902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Ti2448 pedicle screw system augmentation for posterior lumbar interbody fusion.
Wang Z; Fu S; Wu ZX; Zhang Y; Lei W
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Nov; 38(23):2008-15. PubMed ID: 23921332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A computational biomechanical investigation of posterior dynamic instrumentation: combination of dynamic rod and hinged (dynamic) screw.
Erbulut DU; Kiapour A; Oktenoglu T; Ozer AF; Goel VK
J Biomech Eng; 2014 May; 136(5):051007. PubMed ID: 24599026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Biomechanical analysis of lumbar interbody fusion supplemented with various posterior stabilization systems.
Fan W; Guo LX; Zhang M
Eur Spine J; 2021 Aug; 30(8):2342-2350. PubMed ID: 33948750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of the biomechanical effect of pedicle-based dynamic stabilization: a study using finite element analysis.
Jahng TA; Kim YE; Moon KY
Spine J; 2013 Jan; 13(1):85-94. PubMed ID: 23266148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effect of porous orthopaedic implant material and structure on load sharing with simulated bone ingrowth: A finite element analysis comparing titanium and PEEK.
Carpenter RD; Klosterhoff BS; Torstrick FB; Foley KT; Burkus JK; Lee CSD; Gall K; Guldberg RE; Safranski DL
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2018 Apr; 80():68-76. PubMed ID: 29414477
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis.
Rohlmann A; Burra NK; Zander T; Bergmann G
Eur Spine J; 2007 Aug; 16(8):1223-31. PubMed ID: 17206401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Dynamic lumbar pedicle screw-rod stabilization: in vitro biomechanical comparison with standard rigid pedicle screw-rod stabilization.
Bozkuş H; Senoğlu M; Baek S; Sawa AG; Ozer AF; Sonntag VK; Crawford NR
J Neurosurg Spine; 2010 Feb; 12(2):183-9. PubMed ID: 20121354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A new lumbar posterior fixation system, the memory metal spinal system: an in-vitro mechanical evaluation.
Kok D; Firkins PJ; Wapstra FH; Veldhuizen AG
BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2013 Sep; 14():269. PubMed ID: 24047109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The effect of pedicle screw implantation depth and angle on the loading and stiffness of a spinal fusion assembly.
Tsouknidas A
Biomed Mater Eng; 2015; 25(4):425-33. PubMed ID: 26407204
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Biomechanical evaluation of a novel pedicle screw-based interspinous spacer: A finite element analysis.
Chen HC; Wu JL; Huang SC; Zhong ZC; Chiu SL; Lai YS; Cheng CK
Med Eng Phys; 2017 Aug; 46():27-32. PubMed ID: 28622909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A comparison of rigid, semi-rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices: A finite element study.
Biswas JK; Roy S; Rana M; Halder S
Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2019 Dec; 233(12):1292-1298. PubMed ID: 31608769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The inverse effects of load transfer and load sharing on axial compressive stiffness.
Haher TR; Yeung AW; Ottaviano DM; Merola AA; Caruso SA
Spine J; 2001; 1(5):324-9; discussion 330. PubMed ID: 14588309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Anterior thoracolumbar instrumentation: stiffness and load sharing characteristics of plate and rod systems.
Brodke DS; Gollogly S; Bachus KN; Alexander Mohr R; Nguyen BK
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Aug; 28(16):1794-801. PubMed ID: 12923465
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Biomechanical investigation of the effect of pedicle-based hybrid stabilization constructs: A finite element study.
Mesbah M; Barkaoui A
Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2020 Sep; 234(9):931-941. PubMed ID: 32597299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices: a biomechanical comparison.
Galbusera F; Bellini CM; Anasetti F; Ciavarro C; Lovi A; Brayda-Bruno M
Med Eng Phys; 2011 May; 33(4):490-6. PubMed ID: 21177135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilizers for degenerative spine: in vitro biomechanical testing and clinical outcomes.
Chamoli U; Diwan AD; Tsafnat N
J Biomed Mater Res A; 2014 Sep; 102(9):3324-40. PubMed ID: 24382799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Finite element analysis of the effects of pedicle screw fixation nut loosening on lumbar interbody fusion based on the elasto-plateau plasticity of bone characteristics.
Kim Y; Kim TW
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2010 Mar; 35(6):599-606. PubMed ID: 20139810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
