1470 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19477692)
1. Biomechanical comparison of a two-level Maverick disc replacement with a hybrid one-level disc replacement and one-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion.
Erkan S; Rivera Y; Wu C; Mehbod AA; Transfeldt EE
Spine J; 2009 Oct; 9(10):830-5. PubMed ID: 19477692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Revision strategies for single- and two-level total disc arthroplasty procedures: a biomechanical perspective.
Cunningham BW; Hu N; Beatson HJ; Serhan H; Sefter JC; McAfee PC
Spine J; 2009 Sep; 9(9):735-43. PubMed ID: 19477694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model.
Cunningham BW; Gordon JD; Dmitriev AE; Hu N; McAfee PC
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Oct; 28(20):S110-7. PubMed ID: 14560182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Biomechanics of two-level Charité artificial disc placement in comparison to fusion plus single-level disc placement combination.
Grauer JN; Biyani A; Faizan A; Kiapour A; Sairyo K; Ivanov A; Ebraheim NA; Patel TCh; Goel VK
Spine J; 2006; 6(6):659-66. PubMed ID: 17088196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Hybrid testing of lumbar CHARITE discs versus fusions.
Panjabi M; Malcolmson G; Teng E; Tominaga Y; Henderson G; Serhan H
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Apr; 32(9):959-66; discussion 967. PubMed ID: 17450069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Validated finite element analysis of the maverick total disc prosthesis.
Le Huec JC; Lafage V; Bonnet X; Lavaste F; Josse L; Liu M; Skalli W
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2010 Jun; 23(4):249-57. PubMed ID: 20068471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Kinematic evaluation of one- and two-level Maverick lumbar total disc replacement caudal to a long thoracolumbar spinal fusion.
Zhu Q; Itshayek E; Jones CF; Schwab T; Larson CR; Lenke LG; Cripton PA
Eur Spine J; 2012 Jun; 21 Suppl 5(Suppl 5):S599-611. PubMed ID: 22531900
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Biomechanical comparison of lumbar total disc arthroplasty, discectomy, and fusion: effect on adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force.
Gao SG; Lei GH; He HB; Liu H; Xiao WF; Wen T; Liang JY; Li KH
J Neurosurg Spine; 2011 Nov; 15(5):507-14. PubMed ID: 21780862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Response of Charité total disc replacement under physiologic loads: prosthesis component motion patterns.
O'Leary P; Nicolakis M; Lorenz MA; Voronov LI; Zindrick MR; Ghanayem A; Havey RM; Carandang G; Sartori M; Gaitanis IN; Fronczak S; Patwardhan AG
Spine J; 2005; 5(6):590-9. PubMed ID: 16291097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Adjacent segment motion after a simulated lumbar fusion in different sagittal alignments: a biomechanical analysis.
Akamaru T; Kawahara N; Tim Yoon S; Minamide A; Su Kim K; Tomita K; Hutton WC
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Jul; 28(14):1560-6. PubMed ID: 12865845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Cervical disc replacement-porous coated motion prosthesis: a comparative biomechanical analysis showing the key role of the posterior longitudinal ligament.
McAfee PC; Cunningham B; Dmitriev A; Hu N; Woo Kim S; Cappuccino A; Pimenta L
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Oct; 28(20):S176-85. PubMed ID: 14560189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Multidirectional testing of one- and two-level ProDisc-L versus simulated fusions.
Panjabi M; Henderson G; Abjornson C; Yue J
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 May; 32(12):1311-9. PubMed ID: 17515820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Disc arthroplasty design influences intervertebral kinematics and facet forces.
Rousseau MA; Bradford DS; Bertagnoli R; Hu SS; Lotz JC
Spine J; 2006; 6(3):258-66. PubMed ID: 16651219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Biomechanical evaluation of the Total Facet Arthroplasty System: 3-dimensional kinematics.
Zhu Q; Larson CR; Sjovold SG; Rosler DM; Keynan O; Wilson DR; Cripton PA; Oxland TR
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Jan; 32(1):55-62. PubMed ID: 17202893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Basic scientific considerations in total disc arthroplasty.
Cunningham BW
Spine J; 2004; 4(6 Suppl):219S-230S. PubMed ID: 15541670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Biomechanical analysis of rotational motions after disc arthroplasty: implications for patients with adult deformities.
McAfee PC; Cunningham BW; Hayes V; Sidiqi F; Dabbah M; Sefter JC; Hu N; Beatson H
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2006 Sep; 31(19 Suppl):S152-60. PubMed ID: 16946633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Interbody device endplate engagement effects on motion segment biomechanics.
Buttermann GR; Beaubien BP; Freeman AL; Stoll JE; Chappuis JL
Spine J; 2009 Jul; 9(7):564-73. PubMed ID: 19457722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Internal and external responses of anterior lumbar/lumbosacral fusion: nonlinear finite element analysis.
Guan Y; Yoganandan N; Maiman DJ; Pintar FA
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2008 Jun; 21(4):299-304. PubMed ID: 18525492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Biomechanical comparison between lumbar disc arthroplasty and fusion.
Chen SH; Zhong ZC; Chen CS; Chen WJ; Hung C
Med Eng Phys; 2009 Mar; 31(2):244-53. PubMed ID: 18760654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The biomechanics of a multilevel lumbar spine hybrid using nucleus replacement in conjunction with fusion.
Dahl MC; Ellingson AM; Mehta HP; Huelman JH; Nuckley DJ
Spine J; 2013 Feb; 13(2):175-83. PubMed ID: 23318109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
