158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24337038)
1. Activity and loading influence the predicted bone remodeling around cemented hip replacements.
Dickinson AS
J Biomech Eng; 2014 Apr; 136(4):. PubMed ID: 24337038
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Activity intensity, assistive devices and joint replacement influence predicted remodelling in the proximal femur.
Dickinson AS
Biomech Model Mechanobiol; 2016 Feb; 15(1):181-94. PubMed ID: 26183472
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Strain adaptive bone remodelling: influence of the implantation technique.
Behrens BA; Bouguecha A; Nolte I; Meyer-Lindenberg A; Stukenborg-Colsman C; Pressel T
Stud Health Technol Inform; 2008; 133():33-44. PubMed ID: 18376011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Bone remodelling inside a cemented resurfaced femoral head.
Gupta S; New AM; Taylor M
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2006 Jul; 21(6):594-602. PubMed ID: 16542761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Role of subject-specific musculoskeletal loading on the prediction of bone density distribution in the proximal femur.
Vahdati A; Walscharts S; Jonkers I; Garcia-Aznar JM; Vander Sloten J; van Lenthe GH
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2014 Feb; 30():244-52. PubMed ID: 24342624
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Clinical outcome and quantitative evaluation of periprosthetic bone-remodeling of an uncemented femoral component with taper design. A prospective study.
Pitto RP; Schramm M; Hohmann D; Schmidt R
Chir Organi Mov; 2001; 86(2):87-97. PubMed ID: 12025051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The effect of muscle loading on the simulation of bone remodelling in the proximal femur.
Bitsakos C; Kerner J; Fisher I; Amis AA
J Biomech; 2005 Jan; 38(1):133-9. PubMed ID: 15519348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of periprosthetic bone remodelling after implantation of anatomic and straight stem prostheses in total hip arthroplasty.
Grochola LF; Habermann B; Mastrodomenico N; Kurth A
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg; 2008 Apr; 128(4):383-92. PubMed ID: 18038142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Periprosthetic bone remodeling using a triple-taper polished cemented stem in total hip arthroplasty.
Buckland AJ; Dowsey MM; Stoney JD; Hardidge AJ; Ng KW; Choong PF
J Arthroplasty; 2010 Oct; 25(7):1083-90. PubMed ID: 19879719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Volumetric measurement of periprosthetic bone remodeling: prospective 5 years follow-up after cemented total hip arthroplasty.
Burchard R; Leppek R; Schmitt J; Lengsfeld M
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg; 2007 Jul; 127(5):361-8. PubMed ID: 17393176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Role of surgical position on interface stress and initial bone remodeling stimulus around hip resurfacing arthroplasty.
Ong KL; Day JS; Kurtz SM; Field RE; Manley MT
J Arthroplasty; 2009 Oct; 24(7):1137-42. PubMed ID: 18823747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Full-field in vitro measurements and in silico predictions of strain shielding in the implanted femur after total hip arthroplasty.
Chanda S; Dickinson A; Gupta S; Browne M
Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2015 Aug; 229(8):549-59. PubMed ID: 26112349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Influence of the stem fixation scenario on load transfer in a hip resurfacing arthroplasty with a biomimetic stem.
Caouette C; Bureau MN; Vendittoli PA; Lavigne M; Nuño N
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2015 May; 45():90-100. PubMed ID: 25688031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Predicting bone remodeling in response to total hip arthroplasty: computational study using mechanobiochemical model.
Tavakkoli Avval P; Klika V; Bougherara H
J Biomech Eng; 2014 May; 136(5):051002. PubMed ID: 24509505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Pattern of periprosthetic bone remodeling around stable uncemented tapered hip stems: a prospective 84-month follow-up study and a median 156-month cross-sectional study with DXA.
Aldinger PR; Sabo D; Pritsch M; Thomsen M; Mau H; Ewerbeck V; Breusch SJ
Calcif Tissue Int; 2003 Aug; 73(2):115-21. PubMed ID: 14565592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Mid-term study of bone remodeling after femoral cemented stem implantation: comparison between DXA and finite element simulation.
Herrera A; Rebollo S; Ibarz E; Mateo J; Gabarre S; Gracia L
J Arthroplasty; 2014 Jan; 29(1):90-100. PubMed ID: 23725926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Bone remodeling after total hip arthroplasty with a short stemmed metaphyseal loading implant: finite element analysis validated by a prospective DEXA investigation.
Lerch M; Kurtz A; Stukenborg-Colsman C; Nolte I; Weigel N; Bouguecha A; Behrens BA
J Orthop Res; 2012 Nov; 30(11):1822-9. PubMed ID: 22513505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Load-transfer analysis after insertion of cementless anatomical femoral stem using pre- and post-operative CT images based patient-specific finite element analysis.
Yamako G; Chosa E; Zhao X; Totoribe K; Watanabe S; Sakamoto T; Nakane N
Med Eng Phys; 2014 Jun; 36(6):694-700. PubMed ID: 24629623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Influence of the change in stem length on the load transfer and bone remodelling for a cemented resurfaced femur.
Pal B; Gupta S; New AM
J Biomech; 2010 Nov; 43(15):2908-14. PubMed ID: 20728891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Biomechanics of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty.
Ong KL; Kurtz SM; Manley MT; Rushton N; Mohammed NA; Field RE
J Bone Joint Surg Br; 2006 Aug; 88(8):1110-5. PubMed ID: 16877617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
