127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30579021)
1. Biomechanical Evaluation of Cervicothoracic Junction Fusion Constructs.
Godzik J; Dalton JF; Martinez-Del-Campo E; Newcomb AGUS; Dominguez F; Reyes PM; Theodore N; Kelly BP; Crawford NR
World Neurosurg; 2018 Dec; ():. PubMed ID: 30579021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Biomechanical comparison of transfacet screws to lateral mass screw-rod constructs in the lower cervical spine.
Tong J; Ji W; Zhou R; Huang Z; Liu S; Zhu Q
Eur Spine J; 2016 Jun; 25(6):1787-93. PubMed ID: 26530298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Biomechanical contribution of transverse connectors to segmental stability following long segment instrumentation with thoracic pedicle screws.
Kuklo TR; Dmitriev AE; Cardoso MJ; Lehman RA; Erickson M; Gill NW
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Jul; 33(15):E482-7. PubMed ID: 18594445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Biomechanical analysis of cervicothoracic junction osteotomy in cadaveric model of ankylosing spondylitis: effect of rod material and diameter.
Scheer JK; Tang JA; Deviren V; Acosta F; Buckley JM; Pekmezci M; McClellan RT; Ames CP
J Neurosurg Spine; 2011 Mar; 14(3):330-5. PubMed ID: 21235305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Lateral mass versus hybrid construct for cervical laminectomy and fusion.
Regan CM; Emmanuel S; Hornik C; Weinhold P; Lim MR
Orthopedics; 2013 Apr; 36(4):e484-8. PubMed ID: 23590790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Biomechanical evaluation of posterior screw fixation in cadaveric cervical spines.
Papagelopoulos PJ; Currier BL; Neale PG; Hokari Y; Berglund LJ; Larson DR; Fisher DR; An KN
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2003 Jun; (411):13-24. PubMed ID: 12782855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Biomechanical differences between transfacet and lateral mass screw-rod constructs for multilevel posterior cervical spine stabilization.
Miyanji F; Mahar A; Oka R; Newton P
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Nov; 33(23):E865-9. PubMed ID: 18978579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A Biomechanical Comparison of Intralaminar C7 Screw Constructs with and without Offset Connector Used for C6-7 Cervical Spine Immobilization : A Finite Element Study.
Qasim M; Hong JT; Natarajan RN; An HS
J Korean Neurosurg Soc; 2013 Jun; 53(6):331-6. PubMed ID: 24003366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Biomechanical evaluation of occipitocervicothoracic fusion: impact of partial or sequential fixation.
Cheng BC; Hafez MA; Cunningham B; Serhan H; Welch WC
Spine J; 2008; 8(5):821-6. PubMed ID: 17981098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A comparative biomechanical analysis of spinal instability and instrumentation of the cervicothoracic junction: an in vitro human cadaveric model.
Prybis BG; Tortolani PJ; Hu N; Zorn CM; McAfee PC; Cunningham BW
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2007 May; 20(3):233-8. PubMed ID: 17473645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Posterior-only stabilization of 2-column and 3-column injuries at the cervicothoracic junction: a biomechanical study.
O'Brien JR; Dmitriev AE; Yu W; Gelb D; Ludwig S
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2009 Jul; 22(5):340-6. PubMed ID: 19525789
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Biomechanical comparison of single- and two-level cervical arthroplasty versus arthrodesis: effect on adjacent-level spinal kinematics.
Cunningham BW; Hu N; Zorn CM; McAfee PC
Spine J; 2010 Apr; 10(4):341-9. PubMed ID: 20362252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The biomechanical effect of transverse connectors use in a pre- and postlaminectomy model of the posterior cervical spine: an in vitro cadaveric study.
Majid K; Gudipally M; Hussain M; Moldavsky M; Khalil S
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2011 Dec; 36(26):E1694-701. PubMed ID: 21681141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Biomechanics of C-7 transfacet screw fixation.
Horn EM; Reyes PM; Baek S; Senoglu M; Theodore N; Sonntag VK; Crawford NR
J Neurosurg Spine; 2009 Sep; 11(3):338-43. PubMed ID: 19769516
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Biomechanical analysis of a novel posterior construct in a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion model an in vitro study.
Sethi A; Muzumdar AM; Ingalhalikar A; Vaidya R
Spine J; 2011 Sep; 11(9):863-9. PubMed ID: 21802998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
