1963 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19564765)
1. Stress analysis of the interface between cervical vertebrae end plates and the Bryan, Prestige LP, and ProDisc-C cervical disc prostheses: an in vivo image-based finite element study.
Lin CY; Kang H; Rouleau JP; Hollister SJ; Marca FL
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Jul; 34(15):1554-60. PubMed ID: 19564765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Analysis of load sharing on uncovertebral and facet joints at the C5-6 level with implantation of the Bryan, Prestige LP, or ProDisc-C cervical disc prosthesis: an in vivo image-based finite element study.
Kang H; Park P; La Marca F; Hollister SJ; Lin CY
Neurosurg Focus; 2010 Jun; 28(6):E9. PubMed ID: 20568924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Biomechanical effect of constraint in lumbar total disc replacement: a study with finite element analysis.
Chung SK; Kim YE; Wang KC
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 May; 34(12):1281-6. PubMed ID: 19455003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Magnetic resonance imaging clarity of the Bryan, Prodisc-C, Prestige LP, and PCM cervical arthroplasty devices.
Sekhon LH; Duggal N; Lynch JJ; Haid RW; Heller JG; Riew KD; Seex K; Anderson PA
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Mar; 32(6):673-80. PubMed ID: 17413473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effect of two-level total disc replacement on cervical spine kinematics.
Phillips FM; Tzermiadianos MN; Voronov LI; Havey RM; Carandang G; Dooris A; Patwardhan AG
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Oct; 34(22):E794-9. PubMed ID: 19829242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. In situ contact analysis of the prosthesis components of Prodisc-L in lumbar spine following total disc replacement.
Chen WM; Park C; Lee K; Lee S
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Sep; 34(20):E716-23. PubMed ID: 19752690
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Influence of the geometry of a ball-and-socket intervertebral prosthesis at the cervical spine: a finite element study.
Rousseau MA; Bonnet X; Skalli W
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Jan; 33(1):E10-4. PubMed ID: 18165735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Total disc replacement positioning affects facet contact forces and vertebral body strains.
Rundell SA; Auerbach JD; Balderston RA; Kurtz SM
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Nov; 33(23):2510-7. PubMed ID: 18978591
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Motion analysis of bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion: results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial.
Sasso RC; Best NM; Metcalf NH; Anderson PA
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2008 Aug; 21(6):393-9. PubMed ID: 18679092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A biomimetic artificial intervertebral disc system composed of a cubic three-dimensional fabric.
Shikinami Y; Kawabe Y; Yasukawa K; Tsuta K; Kotani Y; Abumi K
Spine J; 2010 Feb; 10(2):141-52. PubMed ID: 19944651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A new cervical artificial disc prosthesis based on physiological curvature of end plate: a finite element analysis.
Yu CC; Liu P; Huang DG; Jiang YH; Feng H; Hao DJ
Spine J; 2016 Nov; 16(11):1384-1391. PubMed ID: 27345748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Influence of different artificial disc kinematics on spine biomechanics.
Zander T; Rohlmann A; Bergmann G
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2009 Feb; 24(2):135-42. PubMed ID: 19121822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cervical spine biomechanics following implantation of a disc prosthesis.
Galbusera F; Bellini CM; Raimondi MT; Fornari M; Assietti R
Med Eng Phys; 2008 Nov; 30(9):1127-33. PubMed ID: 18359659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A biomechanical study of artificial cervical discs using computer simulation.
Ahn HS; DiAngelo DJ
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Apr; 33(8):883-92. PubMed ID: 18404108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. The effect of implant size and device keel on vertebral compression properties in lumbar total disc replacement.
Auerbach JD; Ballester CM; Hammond F; Carine ET; Balderston RA; Elliott DM
Spine J; 2010 Apr; 10(4):333-40. PubMed ID: 20362251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
