These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25025383)

  • 1. Fibrovascular ingrowth into porous polyethylene orbital implants (Medpor) after modified evisceration.
    Huang D; Xu B; Yang Z; Xu B; Lin X; Yang X; Zhao J
    Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg; 2015; 31(2):139-44. PubMed ID: 25025383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Vascularization of coralline versus synthetic hydroxyapatite orbital implants assessed by gadolinium enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.
    Celik T; Yuksel D; Kosker M; Kasim R; Simsek S
    Curr Eye Res; 2015 Mar; 40(3):346-53. PubMed ID: 24871378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Postcontrast magnetic resonance imaging assessment of porous polyethylene orbital implant (Medpor).
    De Potter P; Duprez T; Cosnard G
    Ophthalmology; 2000 Sep; 107(9):1656-60. PubMed ID: 10964823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of fibrovascular ingrowth into porous polyethylene orbital implants.
    Choi HY; Lee JS; Park HJ; Oum BS; Kim HJ; Park DY
    Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2006; 34(4):354-9. PubMed ID: 16764656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of early fibrovascular proliferation according to orbital implant in orbital floor fracture reconstruction.
    Lee H; Baek S
    J Craniofac Surg; 2012 Sep; 23(5):1518-23. PubMed ID: 22976649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of vascularization of Medpor and Medpor-Plus orbital implants: a prospective, randomized study.
    Naik MN; Murthy RK; Honavar SG
    Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg; 2007; 23(6):463-7. PubMed ID: 18030118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Magnetic resonance evaluation of fibrovascular ingrowth into porous polyethylene orbital implant.
    Park SW; Seol HY; Hong SJ; Kim KA; Choi JC; Cha IH
    Clin Imaging; 2003; 27(6):377-81. PubMed ID: 14585562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of fibrovascular tissue ingrowth within synthetic hydroxyapatite orbital implants in children.
    Galluzzi P; De Francesco S; Giacalone G; Cerase A; Monti L; Vallone IM; Lazzeretti L; Venturi C; Hadjistilianou T
    Eur J Ophthalmol; 2011; 21(5):521-8. PubMed ID: 21279974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effect of basic fibroblast growth factor on fibrovascular ingrowth into porous polyethylene anophthalmic socket implants.
    Park WC; Han SK; Kim NJ; Chung TY; Khwarg SI
    Korean J Ophthalmol; 2005 Mar; 19(1):1-8. PubMed ID: 15929480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Hydroxyapatite orbital implant vascularization assessed by magnetic resonance imaging.
    Klapper SR; Jordan DR; Ells A; Grahovac S
    Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg; 2003 Jan; 19(1):46-52. PubMed ID: 12544792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Primary placement of a titanium motility post in a porous polyethylene orbital implant: animal model with quantitative assessment of fibrovascular ingrowth and vascular density.
    Hsu WC; Green JP; Spilker MH; Rubin PA
    Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg; 2000 Sep; 16(5):370-9. PubMed ID: 11021387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. High-density porous polyethylene (Medpor) as a successful anophthalmic socket implant.
    Karesh JW; Dresner SC
    Ophthalmology; 1994 Oct; 101(10):1688-95; discussion 1695-6. PubMed ID: 7936568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of experimental porous silicone implants and porous silicone implants.
    Son J; Kim CS; Yang J
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2012 Jun; 250(6):879-85. PubMed ID: 22202952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Tissue ingrowth into perforated polymethylmethacrylate orbital implants: an experimental study.
    Miyashita D; Chahud F; da Silva GE; de Albuquerque VB; Garcia DM; Velasco e Cruz AA
    Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg; 2013; 29(3):160-3. PubMed ID: 23446301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of the exposure rate of wrapped hydroxyapatite (Bio-Eye) versus unwrapped porous polyethylene (Medpor) orbital implants in enucleated patients.
    Tabatabaee Z; Mazloumi M; Rajabi MT; Khalilzadeh O; Kassaee A; Moghimi S; Eftekhar H; Goldberg RA
    Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg; 2011; 27(2):114-8. PubMed ID: 20829725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Bovine hydroxyapatite orbital implant: a preliminary report.
    Perry JD; Goldberg RA; McCann JD; Shorr N; Engstrom R; Tong J
    Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg; 2002 Jul; 18(4):268-74. PubMed ID: 12142759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Fibrovascularization of porous polyethylene (Medpor) orbital implant in a rabbit model.
    Jordan DR; Brownstein S; Dorey M; Yuen VH; Gilberg S
    Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg; 2004 Mar; 20(2):136-43. PubMed ID: 15083083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The porous polyethylene (Medpor) spherical orbital implant: a retrospective study of 136 cases.
    Blaydon SM; Shepler TR; Neuhaus RW; White WL; Shore JW
    Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg; 2003 Sep; 19(5):364-71. PubMed ID: 14506421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Porous orbital implants, wraps, and PEG placement in the pediatric population after enucleation.
    Wang JK; Liao SL; Lin LL; Kao SC; Tseng HS
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Jul; 144(1):109-116. PubMed ID: 17499206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Free orbital fat graft to prevent porous polyethylene orbital implant exposure in patients with retinoblastoma.
    Kim NJ; Choung HK; Khwarg SI; Yu YS
    Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg; 2005 Jul; 21(4):253-8. PubMed ID: 16052135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.