133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25761000)
21. Prediction of femoral fracture load using automated finite element modeling.
Keyak JH; Rossi SA; Jones KA; Skinner HB
J Biomech; 1998 Feb; 31(2):125-33. PubMed ID: 9593205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Implementation of asymmetric yielding in case-specific finite element models improves the prediction of femoral fractures.
Derikx LC; Vis R; Meinders T; Verdonschot N; Tanck E
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin; 2011 Feb; 14(2):183-93. PubMed ID: 21337224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Biomechanical model of a high risk impending pathologic fracture of the femur: lesion creation based on clinically implemented scoring systems.
Alexander GE; Gutierrez S; Nayak A; Palumbo BT; Cheong D; Letson GD; Santoni BG
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2013 Apr; 28(4):408-14. PubMed ID: 23597777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Predicting the stiffness and strength of human femurs with real metastatic tumors.
Yosibash Z; Plitman Mayo R; Dahan G; Trabelsi N; Amir G; Milgrom C
Bone; 2014 Dec; 69():180-90. PubMed ID: 25284156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Mirels' score for upper limb metastatic lesions: do we need a different cutoff for recommending prophylactic fixation?
Hoban KA; Downie S; Adamson DJA; MacLean JG; Cool P; Jariwala AC
JSES Int; 2022 Jul; 6(4):675-681. PubMed ID: 35813136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Femoral fracture load and fracture pattern is accurately predicted using a gradient-enhanced quasi-brittle finite element model.
Haider IT; Goldak J; Frei H
Med Eng Phys; 2018 May; 55():1-8. PubMed ID: 29551293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 99mTc MDP SPECT-CT-Based Modified Mirels Classification for Evaluation of Risk of Fracture in Skeletal Metastasis: A Pilot Study.
Riaz S; Bashir H; Niazi IK; Butt S; Qamar F
Clin Nucl Med; 2018 Jun; 43(6):e180-e183. PubMed ID: 29561523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Chemotherapy May Obviate Prophylactic Femoral Nail Surgery for Multiple Myeloma Patients With High Mirels' Score Lesions and Impending Pathological Hip Fracture.
Divekar O; Ajayi B; Barkham B; Bernard J; Bishop T; Reyal Y; Willis F; Boyd K; Lui D; Coomber R
Cureus; 2023 Apr; 15(4):e37670. PubMed ID: 37206489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Prediction of fracture location in the proximal femur using finite element models.
Keyak JH; Rossi SA; Jones KA; Les CM; Skinner HB
Med Eng Phys; 2001 Nov; 23(9):657-64. PubMed ID: 11755810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Calibration with or without phantom for fracture risk prediction in cancer patients with femoral bone metastases using CT-based finite element models.
Eggermont F; Verdonschot N; van der Linden Y; Tanck E
PLoS One; 2019; 14(7):e0220564. PubMed ID: 31361790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Subject-specific finite element models implementing a maximum principal strain criterion are able to estimate failure risk and fracture location on human femurs tested in vitro.
Schileo E; Taddei F; Cristofolini L; Viceconti M
J Biomech; 2008; 41(2):356-67. PubMed ID: 18022179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Predicting the strength of femoral shafts with and without metastatic lesions.
Keyak JH; Kaneko TS; Rossi SA; Pejcic MR; Tehranzadeh J; Skinner HB
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2005 Oct; 439():161-70. PubMed ID: 16205155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. European Society of Biomechanics S.M. Perren Award 2014: Safety factor of the proximal femur during gait: a population-based finite element study.
Taddei F; Palmadori I; Taylor WR; Heller MO; Bordini B; Toni A; Schileo E
J Biomech; 2014 Nov; 47(14):3433-40. PubMed ID: 25280759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Previous Damage Accumulation Can Influence Femoral Fracture Strength: A Finite Element Study.
Haider IT; Frei H
J Orthop Res; 2019 Oct; 37(10):2197-2203. PubMed ID: 31144729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Femoral shaft strains during daily activities: Implications for atypical femoral fractures.
Martelli S; Pivonka P; Ebeling PR
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2014 Sep; 29(8):869-76. PubMed ID: 25156184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Patient-specific finite element computer models improve fracture risk assessments in cancer patients with femoral bone metastases compared to clinical guidelines.
Eggermont F; van der Wal G; Westhoff P; Laar A; de Jong M; Rozema T; Kroon HM; Ayu O; Derikx L; Dijkstra S; Verdonschot N; van der Linden Y; Tanck E
Bone; 2020 Jan; 130():115101. PubMed ID: 31655223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Can patient-specific finite element models better predict fractures in metastatic bone disease than experienced clinicians?: Towards computational modelling in daily clinical practice.
Eggermont F; Derikx LC; Verdonschot N; van der Geest ICM; de Jong MAA; Snyers A; van der Linden YM; Tanck E
Bone Joint Res; 2018 Jun; 7(6):430-439. PubMed ID: 30034797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Treatment Planning and Fracture Prediction in Patients with Skeletal Metastasis with CT-Based Rigidity Analysis.
Nazarian A; Entezari V; Zurakowski D; Calderon N; Hipp JA; Villa-Camacho JC; Lin PP; Cheung FH; Aboulafia AJ; Turcotte R; Anderson ME; Gebhardt MC; Cheng EY; Terek RM; Yaszemski M; Damron TA; Snyder BD
Clin Cancer Res; 2015 Jun; 21(11):2514-9. PubMed ID: 25724521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Finite element analysis and CT-based structural rigidity analysis to assess failure load in bones with simulated lytic defects.
Anez-Bustillos L; Derikx LC; Verdonschot N; Calderon N; Zurakowski D; Snyder BD; Nazarian A; Tanck E
Bone; 2014 Jan; 58():160-7. PubMed ID: 24145305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Effect of force direction on femoral fracture load for two types of loading conditions.
Keyak JH; Skinner HB; Fleming JA
J Orthop Res; 2001 Jul; 19(4):539-44. PubMed ID: 11518258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
