201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19936771)
1. How does spinal canal decompression and dorsal stabilization affect segmental mobility? A biomechanical study.
Delank KS; Gercek E; Kuhn S; Hartmann F; Hely H; Röllinghoff M; Rothschild MA; Stützer H; Sobottke R; Eysel P
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg; 2010 Feb; 130(2):285-92. PubMed ID: 19936771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Biomechanical comparison of an interspinous device and a rigid stabilization on lumbar adjacent segment range of motion.
Hartmann F; Dietz SO; Kuhn S; Hely H; Rommens PM; Gercek E
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech; 2011; 78(5):404-9. PubMed ID: 22094153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effect of the Total Facet Arthroplasty System after complete laminectomy-facetectomy on the biomechanics of implanted and adjacent segments.
Phillips FM; Tzermiadianos MN; Voronov LI; Havey RM; Carandang G; Renner SM; Rosler DM; Ochoa JA; Patwardhan AG
Spine J; 2009; 9(1):96-102. PubMed ID: 18440280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Biomechanical assessment of minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a cadaver study.
Hamasaki T; Tanaka N; Kim J; Okada M; Ochi M; Hutton WC
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2009 Oct; 22(7):486-91. PubMed ID: 20075811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Does superior-segment facet violation or laminectomy destabilize the adjacent level in lumbar transpedicular fixation? An in vitro human cadaveric assessment.
Cardoso MJ; Dmitriev AE; Helgeson M; Lehman RA; Kuklo TR; Rosner MK
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Dec; 33(26):2868-73. PubMed ID: 19092616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Biomechanical effect of graded minimal-invasive decompression procedures on lumbar spinal stability.
Hartmann F; Janssen C; Böhm S; Hely H; Rommens PM; Gercek E
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg; 2012 Sep; 132(9):1233-9. PubMed ID: 22592915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Adjacent segment mobility after rigid and semirigid instrumentation of the lumbar spine.
Cakir B; Carazzo C; Schmidt R; Mattes T; Reichel H; Käfer W
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 May; 34(12):1287-91. PubMed ID: 19455004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system: a preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings.
Beastall J; Karadimas E; Siddiqui M; Nicol M; Hughes J; Smith F; Wardlaw D
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Mar; 32(6):685-90. PubMed ID: 17413475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effects of facetectomy and crosslink augmentation on motion segment flexibility in posterior lumbar interbody fusion.
Chutkan NB; Zhou H; Akins JP; Wenger KH
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Oct; 33(22):E828-35. PubMed ID: 18923306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Biomechanical analysis of lumbar spine after implantation of a disk prosthesis and supplementary spinal fusion for management of complications].
Birnbaum K; Phoa T; Maus U; Prescher A; Weisskopf M
Z Orthop Unfall; 2009; 147(4):493-500. PubMed ID: 19693744
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Biomechanics of posterior dynamic stabilizing device (DIAM) after facetectomy and discectomy.
Phillips FM; Voronov LI; Gaitanis IN; Carandang G; Havey RM; Patwardhan AG
Spine J; 2006; 6(6):714-22. PubMed ID: 17088203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Biomechanical evaluation of a new total posterior-element replacement system.
Wilke HJ; Schmidt H; Werner K; Schmölz W; Drumm J
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2006 Nov; 31(24):2790-6; discussion 2797. PubMed ID: 17108830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Immediate biomechanical effects of lumbar posterior dynamic stabilization above a circumferential fusion.
Cheng BC; Gordon J; Cheng J; Welch WC
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Nov; 32(23):2551-7. PubMed ID: 17978653
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The biomechanical effects of spondylolysis and its treatment.
Mihara H; Onari K; Cheng BC; David SM; Zdeblick TA
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Feb; 28(3):235-8. PubMed ID: 12567023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Biomechanical evaluation of a dynamic pedicle screw fixation device.
Xu HZ; Wang XY; Chi YL; Zhu QA; Lin Y; Huang QS; Dai LY
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2006 May; 21(4):330-6. PubMed ID: 16434133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Influence of Dynesys system screw profile on adjacent segment and screw.
Liu CL; Zhong ZC; Shih SL; Hung C; Lee YE; Chen CS
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2010 Aug; 23(6):410-7. PubMed ID: 20683426
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis in younger age patients could lead to higher stresses in the remaining neural arch -- a finite element investigation.
Ivanov A; Faizan A; Sairyo K; Ebraheim N; Biyani A; Goel VK
Minim Invasive Neurosurg; 2007 Feb; 50(1):18-22. PubMed ID: 17546538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Biomechanical effect of different interspinous devices on lumbar spinal range of motion under preload conditions.
Hartmann F; Dietz SO; Hely H; Rommens PM; Gercek E
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg; 2011 Jul; 131(7):917-26. PubMed ID: 21190031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [The optimal insertion position of the lumbar interspinous dynamic stabilization device (Coflex): a biomechanical evaluation].
Zu D; Hai Y; Lu S; Yang J; Liu Y; Liu T; Meng X; Zhou L; Pang C
Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2014 Mar; 52(3):179-83. PubMed ID: 24785455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
