143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28373012)
1. Prediction of damage formation in hip arthroplasties by finite element analysis using computed tomography images.
Abdullah AH; Todo M; Nakashima Y
Med Eng Phys; 2017 Jun; 44():8-15. PubMed ID: 28373012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Prediction of Hip Failure Load: In Vitro Study of 80 Femurs Using Three Imaging Methods and Finite Element Models-The European Fracture Study (EFFECT).
Pottecher P; Engelke K; Duchemin L; Museyko O; Moser T; Mitton D; Vicaut E; Adams J; Skalli W; Laredo JD; Bousson V
Radiology; 2016 Sep; 280(3):837-47. PubMed ID: 27077380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Prediction of proximal femur strength using a CT-based nonlinear finite element method: differences in predicted fracture load and site with changing load and boundary conditions.
Bessho M; Ohnishi I; Matsumoto T; Ohashi S; Matsuyama J; Tobita K; Kaneko M; Nakamura K
Bone; 2009 Aug; 45(2):226-31. PubMed ID: 19398043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Finite element analysis of femoral neck stress in relation to pelvic width.
Schwarzkopf R; Dong NN; Fetto JF
Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis; 2011; 69(4):292-7. PubMed ID: 22196384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Noncemented total hip arthroplasty: influence of extramedullary parameters on initial implant stability and on bone-implant interface stresses].
Ramaniraka NA; Rakotomanana LR; Rubin PJ; Leyvraz P
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot; 2000 Oct; 86(6):590-7. PubMed ID: 11060433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Bone preserving level of osteotomy in short-stem total hip arthroplasty does not influence stress shielding dimensions - a comparing finite elements analysis.
Burchard R; Braas S; Soost C; Graw JA; Schmitt J
BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2017 Aug; 18(1):343. PubMed ID: 28784121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Hip resurfacing increases bone strains associated with short-term femoral neck fracture.
Long JP; Santner TJ; Bartel DL
J Orthop Res; 2009 Oct; 27(10):1319-25. PubMed ID: 19338031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A preliminary dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-based finite element model for assessing osteoporotic hip fracture risk.
Luo Y; Ferdous Z; Leslie WD
Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2011 Dec; 225(12):1188-95. PubMed ID: 22320058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Study of stress variations in single-stance and sideways fall using image-based finite element analysis.
Faisal TR; Luo Y
Biomed Mater Eng; 2016 May; 27(1):1-14. PubMed ID: 27175463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. New QCT analysis approach shows the importance of fall orientation on femoral neck strength.
Carpenter RD; Beaupré GS; Lang TF; Orwoll ES; Carter DR;
J Bone Miner Res; 2005 Sep; 20(9):1533-42. PubMed ID: 16059625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Influence of offset on osseointegration in cementless total hip arthroplasty: A finite element study.
Meisterhans M; Dimitriou D; Fasser MR; Hoch A; Jud L; Zingg PO
J Orthop Res; 2024 Jul; 42(7):1566-1576. PubMed ID: 38376065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Biomechanical study of the resurfacing hip arthroplasty: finite element analysis of the femoral component.
Watanabe Y; Shiba N; Matsuo S; Higuchi F; Tagawa Y; Inoue A
J Arthroplasty; 2000 Jun; 15(4):505-11. PubMed ID: 10884212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Location of atypical femoral fracture can be determined by tensile stress distribution influenced by femoral bowing and neck-shaft angle: a CT-based nonlinear finite element analysis model for the assessment of femoral shaft loading stress.
Oh Y; Fujita K; Wakabayashi Y; Kurosa Y; Okawa A
Injury; 2017 Dec; 48(12):2736-2743. PubMed ID: 28982480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Stem geometry changes initial femoral fixation stability of a revised press-fit hip prosthesis: A finite element study.
Russell RD; Huo MH; Rodrigues DC; Kosmopoulos V
Technol Health Care; 2016 Nov; 24(6):865-872. PubMed ID: 27434281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessment of total hip arthroplasty by means of computed tomography 3D models and fracture risk evaluation.
Gargiulo P; Pétursson T; Magnússon B; Bifulco P; Cesarelli M; Izzo GM; Magnúsdóttir G; Halldórsson G; Ludvigsdóttir GK; Tribel J; Jónsson H
Artif Organs; 2013 Jun; 37(6):567-73. PubMed ID: 23550540
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Locking compression plate versus revision-prosthesis for Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty.
Joestl J; Hofbauer M; Lang N; Tiefenboeck T; Hajdu S
Injury; 2016 Apr; 47(4):939-43. PubMed ID: 26872997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Finite element analysis of different repair methods of Vancouver B1 periprosthetic fractures after total hip arthroplasty.
Chen DW; Lin CL; Hu CC; Wu JW; Lee MS
Injury; 2012 Jul; 43(7):1061-5. PubMed ID: 22336128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of in situ and in vitro CT scan-based finite element model predictions of proximal femoral fracture load.
Keyak JH; Falkinstein Y
Med Eng Phys; 2003 Nov; 25(9):781-7. PubMed ID: 14519351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Subject specific finite element modelling of periprosthetic femoral fractures in different load cases.
Hennicke NS; Saemann M; Kluess D; Bader R; Sander M
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2022 Feb; 126():105059. PubMed ID: 34995835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
