BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

191 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20093986)

  • 1. Biomechanical evaluation of peri- and interprosthetic fractures of the femur.
    Lehmann W; Rupprecht M; Hellmers N; Sellenschloh K; Briem D; Püschel K; Amling M; Morlock M; Rueger JM
    J Trauma; 2010 Jun; 68(6):1459-63. PubMed ID: 20093986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Osteosynthesis for periprosthetic supracondylar fracture above a total knee arthroplasty using a locking compression plate].
    Krbec M; Motycka J; Lunácek L; Dousa P
    Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech; 2009 Dec; 76(6):473-8. PubMed ID: 20067694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effect of implant overlap on the mechanical properties of the femur.
    Harris T; Ruth JT; Szivek J; Haywood B
    J Trauma; 2003 May; 54(5):930-5. PubMed ID: 12777906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A biomechanical study comparing cortical onlay allograft struts and plates in the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures.
    Wilson D; Frei H; Masri BA; Oxland TR; Duncan CP
    Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2005 Jan; 20(1):70-6. PubMed ID: 15567539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Interprosthetic femoral fractures.
    Mamczak CN; Gardner MJ; Bolhofner B; Borrelli J; Streubel PN; Ricci WM
    J Orthop Trauma; 2010 Dec; 24(12):740-4. PubMed ID: 21063218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. What is the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur? A biomechanical analysis.
    Lehmann W; Rupprecht M; Nuechtern J; Melzner D; Sellenschloh K; Kolb J; Fensky F; Hoffmann M; Püschel K; Morlock M; Rueger JM
    Int Orthop; 2012 Dec; 36(12):2441-6. PubMed ID: 23132503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Fracture load for periprosthetic femoral fractures in cemented versus uncemented hip stems: an experimental in vitro study.
    Thomsen MN; Jakubowitz E; Seeger JB; Lee C; Kretzer JP; Clarius M
    Orthopedics; 2008 Jul; 31(7):653. PubMed ID: 19292385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Distal femoral fixation: a biomechanical comparison of trigen retrograde intramedullary (i.m.) nail, dynamic condylar screw (DCS), and locking compression plate (LCP) condylar plate.
    Heiney JP; Barnett MD; Vrabec GA; Schoenfeld AJ; Baji A; Njus GO
    J Trauma; 2009 Feb; 66(2):443-9. PubMed ID: 19204519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Biomechanical comparison of two side plate fixation techniques in an unstable intertrochanteric osteotomy model: Sliding Hip Screw and Percutaneous Compression Plate.
    Krischak GD; Augat P; Beck A; Arand M; Baier B; Blakytny R; Gebhard F; Claes L
    Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2007 Dec; 22(10):1112-8. PubMed ID: 17900766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A biomechanical comparison of various methods of stabilization of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur.
    Tencer AF; Johnson KD; Johnston DW; Gill K
    J Orthop Res; 1984; 2(3):297-305. PubMed ID: 6491820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Periprosthetic and interimplant femoral fractures: Biomechanical analysis].
    Rupprecht M; Schlickewei C; Fensky F; Morlock M; Püschel K; Rueger JM; Lehmann W
    Unfallchirurg; 2015 Dec; 118(12):1025-32. PubMed ID: 24893727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Biomechanical evaluation of fracture fixation constructs using a variable-angle locked periprosthetic femur plate system.
    Hoffmann MF; Burgers TA; Mason JJ; Williams BO; Sietsema DL; Jones CB
    Injury; 2014 Jul; 45(7):1035-41. PubMed ID: 24680467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Interprosthetic femoral fractures: analysis of 14 cases. Proposal for an additional grade in the Vancouver and SoFCOT classifications.
    Soenen M; Migaud H; Bonnomet F; Girard J; Mathevon H; Ehlinger M
    Orthop Traumatol Surg Res; 2011 Nov; 97(7):693-8. PubMed ID: 21982823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures associated with cemented femoral stems: a biomechanical comparison of locked plating and conventional cable plates.
    Fulkerson E; Koval K; Preston CF; Iesaka K; Kummer FJ; Egol KA
    J Orthop Trauma; 2006 Feb; 20(2):89-93. PubMed ID: 16462560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Incidence of and risk factors for femoral fractures in the gap between hip and knee implants.
    Valle Cruz JA; Urda AL; Serrano L; Rodriguez-Gonzalez FA; Otero J; Moro E; López-Durán L
    Int Orthop; 2016 Aug; 40(8):1697-1702. PubMed ID: 26338344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Operative treatment of supracondylar femoral fractures].
    He L; Guo WG; Sun L
    Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2005 Feb; 43(4):235-8. PubMed ID: 15842919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Biomechanical evaluation of retrograde intramedullary stabilization for femoral fractures: the effect of fracture level.
    Goodwin R; Mahar AT; Oka R; Steinman S; Newton PO
    J Pediatr Orthop; 2007 Dec; 27(8):873-6. PubMed ID: 18209606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Do locked compression intramedullary nails improve the biomechanical stability of distal femoral fractures?
    Wild M; Thelen S; Spoor V; Eichler C; Koebke J; Jungbluth P; Betsch M; Windolf J; Hakimi M
    J Trauma; 2011 Apr; 70(4):832-7. PubMed ID: 21248651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Management of periprosthetic femur fractures with a first generation locking plate.
    Fulkerson E; Tejwani N; Stuchin S; Egol K
    Injury; 2007 Aug; 38(8):965-72. PubMed ID: 17561020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Treatment of femoral fracture on previous implants with minimally-invasive surgery and total weight-bearing: benefit of locking plate. Preliminary report].
    Ehlinger M; Cognet JM; Simon P
    Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot; 2008 Feb; 94(1):26-36. PubMed ID: 18342027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.