724 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21849724)
1. Effects of nonlinearity in the materials used for the semi-rigid pedicle screw systems on biomechanical behaviors of the lumbar spine after surgery.
Kim H; Lim DH; Oh HJ; Lee KY; Lee SJ
Biomed Mater; 2011 Oct; 6(5):055005. PubMed ID: 21849724
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Biomechanical assessment of a PEEK rod system for semi-rigid fixation of lumbar fusion constructs.
Gornet MF; Chan FW; Coleman JC; Murrell B; Nockels RP; Taylor BA; Lanman TH; Ochoa JA
J Biomech Eng; 2011 Aug; 133(8):081009. PubMed ID: 21950902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of the biomechanical effect of pedicle-based dynamic stabilization: a study using finite element analysis.
Jahng TA; Kim YE; Moon KY
Spine J; 2013 Jan; 13(1):85-94. PubMed ID: 23266148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Effect of a pedicle-screw-based motion preservation system on lumbar spine biomechanics: a probabilistic finite element study with subsequent sensitivity analysis.
Rohlmann A; Nabil Boustani H; Bergmann G; Zander T
J Biomech; 2010 Nov; 43(15):2963-9. PubMed ID: 20696430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Biomechanical assessment of anterior lumbar interbody fusion with an anterior lumbosacral fixation screw-plate: comparison to stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion and anterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws in an unstable human cadaver model.
Gerber M; Crawford NR; Chamberlain RH; Fifield MS; LeHuec JC; Dickman CA
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2006 Apr; 31(7):762-8. PubMed ID: 16582849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Comparison of the load-sharing characteristics between pedicle-based dynamic and rigid rod devices.
Ahn YH; Chen WM; Lee KY; Park KW; Lee SJ
Biomed Mater; 2008 Dec; 3(4):044101. PubMed ID: 19029615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The effect of cement augmentation and extension of posterior instrumentation on stabilization and adjacent level effects in the elderly spine.
Tan JS; Singh S; Zhu QA; Dvorak MF; Fisher CG; Oxland TR
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Dec; 33(25):2728-40. PubMed ID: 19050578
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Pedicle screw augmentation with polyethylene tape: a biomechanical study in the osteoporotic thoracolumbar spine.
Hamasaki T; Tanaka N; Kim J; Okada M; Ochi M; Hutton WC
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2010 Apr; 23(2):127-32. PubMed ID: 20051920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Biomechanical comparison of costotransverse process screw fixation and pedicle screw fixation of the upper thoracic spine.
Little AS; Brasiliense LB; Lazaro BC; Reyes PM; Dickman CA; Crawford NR
Neurosurgery; 2010 Mar; 66(3 Suppl Operative):178-82; discussion 182. PubMed ID: 20173568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Biomechanical comparisons of different posterior instrumentation constructs after two-level ALIF: a finite element study.
Fan CY; Hsu CC; Chao CK; Lin SC; Chao KH
Med Eng Phys; 2010 Mar; 32(2):203-11. PubMed ID: 20061174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. A computational biomechanical investigation of posterior dynamic instrumentation: combination of dynamic rod and hinged (dynamic) screw.
Erbulut DU; Kiapour A; Oktenoglu T; Ozer AF; Goel VK
J Biomech Eng; 2014 May; 136(5):051007. PubMed ID: 24599026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Biomechanics of dynamic rod segments for achieving transitional stiffness with lumbosacral fusion.
Lazaro BC; Reyes PM; Newcomb AG; Yaqoobi AS; Brasiliense LB; Sonntag VK; Crawford NR
Neurosurgery; 2013 Sep; 73(3):517-27. PubMed ID: 23756746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Biomechanical evaluation of a new pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization device (Awesome Rod System)--a finite element analysis.
Chen CS; Huang CH; Shih SL
BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2015 Apr; 16():81. PubMed ID: 25880231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A biomechanical assessment of infra-laminar hooks as an alternative to supra-laminar hooks in thoracolumbar fixation.
Murakami H; Tsai KJ; Attallah-Wasif ES; Yamazaki K; Shimamura T; Hutton WC
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2006 Apr; 31(9):967-71. PubMed ID: 16641771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis.
Rohlmann A; Burra NK; Zander T; Bergmann G
Eur Spine J; 2007 Aug; 16(8):1223-31. PubMed ID: 17206401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
