468 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28752245)
1. Which salvage fixation technique is best for the failed initial screw fixation at the cervicothoracic junction? A biomechanical comparison study.
Hong JT; Tomoyuki T; Jain A; Orías AAE; Inoue N; An HS
Eur Spine J; 2017 Sep; 26(9):2417-2424. PubMed ID: 28752245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Computed tomography and biomechanical evaluation of screw fixation options at the cervicothoracic junction: intralamina versus intrapedicular techniques.
Cardoso MJ; Dmitriev AE; Lehman RA; Helgeson M; Cooper P; Rosner MK
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Nov; 33(24):2612-7. PubMed ID: 19011542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Salvage of C2 pedicle and pars screws using the intralaminar technique: a biomechanical analysis.
Lehman RA; Dmitriev AE; Helgeson MD; Sasso RC; Kuklo TR; Riew KD
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Apr; 33(9):960-5. PubMed ID: 18427316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Considerations for the use of C7 crossing laminar screws in subaxial and cervicothoracic instrumentation.
Ilgenfritz RM; Gandhi AA; Fredericks DC; Grosland NM; Smucker JD
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Feb; 38(4):E199-204. PubMed ID: 23169075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Using lamina screws as a salvage technique at C-7: computed tomography and biomechanical analysis using cadaveric vertebrae. Laboratory investigation.
Cardoso MJ; Dmitriev AE; Helgeson MD; Stephens F; Campbell V; Lehman RA; Cooper P; Rosner MK
J Neurosurg Spine; 2009 Jul; 11(1):28-33. PubMed ID: 19569937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A comparison of pedicle and lateral mass screw construct stiffnesses at the cervicothoracic junction: a biomechanical study.
Rhee JM; Kraiwattanapong C; Hutton WC
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2005 Nov; 30(21):E636-40. PubMed ID: 16261101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Biomechanical comparison of anatomic trajectory pedicle screw versus injectable calcium sulfate graft-augmented pedicle screw for salvage in cadaveric thoracic bone.
Derincek A; Wu C; Mehbod A; Transfeldt EE
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2006 Jun; 19(4):286-91. PubMed ID: 16778665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Paravertebral foramen screw fixation for posterior cervical spine fusion: biomechanical study and description of a novel technique.
Maki S; Aramomi M; Matsuura Y; Furuya T; Ota M; Iijima Y; Saito J; Suzuki T; Mannoji C; Takahashi K; Yamazaki M; Koda M
J Neurosurg Spine; 2017 Oct; 27(4):415-420. PubMed ID: 28498072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The effect of spinal instrumentation on kinematics at the cervicothoracic junction: emphasis on soft-tissue response in an in vitro human cadaveric model.
Kretzer RM; Hu N; Umekoji H; Sciubba DM; Jallo GI; McAfee PC; Tortolani PJ; Cunningham BW
J Neurosurg Spine; 2010 Oct; 13(4):435-42. PubMed ID: 20887140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A biomechanical evaluation of three revision screw strategies for failed lateral mass fixation.
Hostin RA; Wu C; Perra JH; Polly DW; Akesen B; Wroblewski JM
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Oct; 33(22):2415-21. PubMed ID: 18923316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Posterior cervicothoracic instrumentation in spine tumors.
Mazel C; Hoffmann E; Antonietti P; Grunenwald D; Henry M; Williams J
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2004 Jun; 29(11):1246-53. PubMed ID: 15167665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Biomechanical comparison of translaminar versus pedicle screws at T1 and T2 in long subaxial cervical constructs.
McGirt MJ; Sutter EG; Xu R; Sciubba DM; Wolinsky JP; Witham TF; Gokaslan ZL; Bydon A
Neurosurgery; 2009 Dec; 65(6 Suppl):167-72; discussion 172. PubMed ID: 19934991
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Use of the anatomic trajectory for thoracic pedicle screw salvage after failure/violation using the straight-forward technique: a biomechanical analysis.
Lehman RA; Kuklo TR
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Sep; 28(18):2072-7. PubMed ID: 14501916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Pedicle screw reinsertion using previous pilot hole and trajectory does not reduce fixation strength.
Kang DG; Lehman RA; Wagner SC; Bevevino AJ; Bernstock JD; Gaume RE; Dmitriev AE
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2014 Sep; 39(20):1640-7. PubMed ID: 24979143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Biomechanical comparison of costotransverse process screw fixation and pedicle screw fixation of the upper thoracic spine.
Little AS; Brasiliense LB; Lazaro BC; Reyes PM; Dickman CA; Crawford NR
Neurosurgery; 2010 Mar; 66(3 Suppl Operative):178-82; discussion 182. PubMed ID: 20173568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A biomechanical assessment of infra-laminar hooks as an alternative to supra-laminar hooks in thoracolumbar fixation.
Murakami H; Tsai KJ; Attallah-Wasif ES; Yamazaki K; Shimamura T; Hutton WC
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2006 Apr; 31(9):967-71. PubMed ID: 16641771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The biomechanical effect of pedicle screw hubbing on pullout resistance in the thoracic spine.
Paik H; Dmitriev AE; Lehman RA; Gaume RE; Ambati DV; Kang DG; Lenke LG
Spine J; 2012 May; 12(5):417-24. PubMed ID: 22480532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Tapping insertional torque allows prediction for better pedicle screw fixation and optimal screw size selection.
Helgeson MD; Kang DG; Lehman RA; Dmitriev AE; Luhmann SJ
Spine J; 2013 Aug; 13(8):957-65. PubMed ID: 23602374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. An RCT study on the feasibility of anterior transpedicular screw fixation in the cervicothoracic junction.
Zhao L; Hong J; Wandtke ME; Xu R; Ma W; Jiang W; Gu Y; Chen J; Wang L; Liu J; Ebraheim NA
Eur Spine J; 2016 Jun; 25(6):1716-23. PubMed ID: 26931331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
