122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24033669)
1. Comparison of the biomechanical properties of a ventral cervical intervertebral anchored fusion device with locking plate fixation applied to cadaveric canine cervical spines.
Schöllhorn B; Bürki A; Stahl C; Howard J; Forterre F
Vet Surg; 2013 Oct; 42(7):825-31. PubMed ID: 24033669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A new stand-alone cervical anterior interbody fusion device: biomechanical comparison with established anterior cervical fixation devices.
Scholz M; Reyes PM; Schleicher P; Sawa AG; Baek S; Kandziora F; Marciano FF; Crawford NR
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Jan; 34(2):156-60. PubMed ID: 19139665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Biomechanics of an integrated interbody device versus ACDF anterior locking plate in a single-level cervical spine fusion construct.
Stein MI; Nayak AN; Gaskins RB; Cabezas AF; Santoni BG; Castellvi AE
Spine J; 2014 Jan; 14(1):128-36. PubMed ID: 24231054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A zero-profile anchored spacer in multilevel cervical anterior interbody fusion: biomechanical comparison to established fixation techniques.
Scholz M; Schleicher P; Pabst S; Kandziora F
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2015 Apr; 40(7):E375-80. PubMed ID: 25584947
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Biomechanical effects of a titanium intervertebral cage as a stand-alone device, and in combination with locking plates in the canine caudal cervical spine.
Beishuizen R; Reints Bok TE; Teunissen M; van der Veen AJ; Emanuel KS; Tryfonidou MA; Meij BP
Vet Surg; 2021 Jul; 50(5):1087-1097. PubMed ID: 33955033
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A pilot in vitro biomechanical comparison of locking compression plate fixation and kerf-cut cylinder fixation for ventral fusion of fourth and fifth equine cervical vertebrae.
Reardon R; Bailey R; Walmsley J; Heller J; Lischer C
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol; 2009; 22(5):371-9. PubMed ID: 19718487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Biomechanical evaluation of a low-profile, anchored cervical interbody spacer device at the index level or adjacent to plated fusion.
Balaram AK; Ghanayem AJ; OʼLeary PT; Voronov LI; Havey RM; Carandang G; Abjornson C; Patwardhan AG
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2014 Jun; 39(13):E763-9. PubMed ID: 24732831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. The biomechanical stability of a novel spacer with integrated plate in contiguous two-level and three-level ACDF models: an in vitro cadaveric study.
Clavenna AL; Beutler WJ; Gudipally M; Moldavsky M; Khalil S
Spine J; 2012 Feb; 12(2):157-63. PubMed ID: 22405617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Biomechanical assessment of anchored cervical interbody cages: comparison of 2-screw and 4-screw designs.
Reis MT; Reyes PM; Crawford NR
Neurosurgery; 2014 Sep; 10 Suppl 3():412-7; discussion 417. PubMed ID: 24662505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Biomechanical comparison of cervical spine reconstructive techniques after a multilevel corpectomy of the cervical spine.
Singh K; Vaccaro AR; Kim J; Lorenz EP; Lim TH; An HS
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Oct; 28(20):2352-8; discussion 2358. PubMed ID: 14560082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A comparative biomechanical study of a novel integrated plate spacer for stabilization of cervical spine: an in vitro human cadaveric model.
Majid K; Chinthakunta S; Muzumdar A; Khalil S
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2012 Jul; 27(6):532-6. PubMed ID: 22244511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Biomechanical comparison of two-level cervical locking posterior screw/rod and hook/rod techniques.
Espinoza-Larios A; Ames CP; Chamberlain RH; Sonntag VK; Dickman CA; Crawford NR
Spine J; 2007; 7(2):194-204. PubMed ID: 17321969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Biomechanical Comparison of 2 Veterinary Locking Plates to Monocortical Screw/Polymethylmethacrylate Fixation in Canine Cadaveric Cervical Vertebral Column.
Hettlich BF; Fosgate GT; Litsky AS
Vet Surg; 2017 Jan; 46(1):95-102. PubMed ID: 27902850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A comparative biomechanical study of traditional and in-line plating systems following immediate stabilization of single and bi-level cervical segments.
Hunter W; Bucklen B; Muzumdar A; Moldavsky M; Hussain M; Khalil S
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2012 Jan; 27(1):84-90. PubMed ID: 21824696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. A biomechanical comparison of three surgical approaches in bilateral subaxial cervical facet dislocation.
Kim SM; Lim TJ; Paterno J; Park J; Kim DH
J Neurosurg Spine; 2004 Jul; 1(1):108-15. PubMed ID: 15291030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Do stand-alone interbody spacers with integrated screws provide adequate segmental stability for multilevel cervical arthrodesis?
Paik H; Kang DG; Lehman RA; Cardoso MJ; Gaume RE; Ambati DV; Dmitriev AE
Spine J; 2014 Aug; 14(8):1740-7. PubMed ID: 24462812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
