201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19936771)
21. 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]
22. Biomechanical study of lumbar spinal stability after osteoplastic laminectomy.
Kato Y; Panjabi MM; Nibu K
J Spinal Disord; 1998 Apr; 11(2):146-50. PubMed ID: 9588472
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. The effect of dynamic posterior stabilization on facet joint contact forces: an in vitro investigation.
Niosi CA; Wilson DC; Zhu Q; Keynan O; Wilson DR; Oxland TR
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Jan; 33(1):19-26. PubMed ID: 18165744
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The effect of sagittal alignment on adjacent joint mobility after lumbar instrumentation--a biomechanical study of lumbar vertebrae in a porcine model.
Chen WJ; Lai PL; Tai CL; Chen LH; Niu CC
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2004 Oct; 19(8):763-8. PubMed ID: 15342147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. 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]
27. Effect of immobilization and configuration on lumbar adjacent-segment biomechanics.
Ha KY; Schendel MJ; Lewis JL; Ogilvie JW
J Spinal Disord; 1993 Apr; 6(2):99-105. PubMed ID: 8504234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Effect of graded facetectomy on biomechanics of Dynesys dynamic stabilization system.
Kiapour A; Ambati D; Hoy RW; Goel VK
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2012 May; 37(10):E581-9. PubMed ID: 22198353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Two in vivo surgical approaches for lumbar corpectomy using allograft and a metallic implant: a controlled clinical and biomechanical study.
Huang P; Gupta MC; Sarigul-Klijn N; Hazelwood S
Spine J; 2006; 6(6):648-58. PubMed ID: 17088195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. [Functional sequelae of surgical decompression of the lumbar spine--a biomechanical study in vitro].
Quint U; Wilke HJ; Löer F; Claes LE
Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb; 1998; 136(4):350-7. PubMed ID: 9795438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Types of spinal instability that require interbody support in posterior lumbar reconstruction: an in vitro biomechanical investigation.
Oda I; Abumi K; Yu BS; Sudo H; Minami A
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Jul; 28(14):1573-80. PubMed ID: 12865847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Biomechanical evaluation of occipitocervicothoracic fusion: impact of partial or sequential fixation.
Cheng BC; Hafez MA; Cunningham B; Serhan H; Welch WC
Spine J; 2008; 8(5):821-6. PubMed ID: 17981098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. Biomechanical comparison of adjacent segmental motion after ventral cervical fixation with varying angles of lordosis.
Hwang SH; Kayanja M; Milks RA; Benzel EC
Spine J; 2007; 7(2):216-21. PubMed ID: 17321972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Effects of cord pretension and stiffness of the Dynesys system spacer on the biomechanics of spinal decompression- a finite element study.
Shih SL; Liu CL; Huang LY; Huang CH; Chen CS
BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2013 Jun; 14():191. PubMed ID: 23777265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Junction kinematics between proximal mobile and distal fused lumbar segments: biomechanical analysis of pedicle and hook constructs.
Hongo M; Gay RE; Zhao KD; Ilharreborde B; Huddleston PM; Berglund LJ; An KN; Zhao C
Spine J; 2009 Oct; 9(10):846-53. PubMed ID: 19660990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Biomechanical effects of laminoplasty versus laminectomy: stenosis and stability.
Subramaniam V; Chamberlain RH; Theodore N; Baek S; Safavi-Abbasi S; Senoğlu M; Sonntag VK; Crawford NR
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Jul; 34(16):E573-8. PubMed ID: 19770600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Biomechanical comparison of a novel percutaneous transfacet device and a traditional posterior system for single level fusion.
Mahar A; Kim C; Oka R; Odell T; Perry A; Mirkovic S; Garfin S
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2006 Dec; 19(8):591-4. PubMed ID: 17146303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decompression.
Schulte TL; Hurschler C; Haversath M; Liljenqvist U; Bullmann V; Filler TJ; Osada N; Fallenberg EM; Hackenberg L
Eur Spine J; 2008 Aug; 17(8):1057-65. PubMed ID: 18493802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
