147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30738327)
1. Mechanical behavior of metastatic femurs through patient-specific computational models accounting for bone-metastasis interaction.
Falcinelli C; Di Martino A; Gizzi A; Vairo G; Denaro V
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2019 May; 93():9-22. PubMed ID: 30738327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The effect of deep learning-based lesion segmentation on failure load calculations of metastatic femurs using finite element analysis.
Ataei A; Eggermont F; Verdonschot N; Lessmann N; Tanck E
Bone; 2024 Feb; 179():116987. PubMed ID: 38061504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Pathological fracture risk assessment in patients with femoral metastases using CT-based finite element methods. A retrospective clinical study.
Sternheim A; Giladi O; Gortzak Y; Drexler M; Salai M; Trabelsi N; Milgrom C; Yosibash Z
Bone; 2018 May; 110():215-220. PubMed ID: 29475110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. QCT-based failure analysis of proximal femurs under various loading orientations.
Mirzaei M; Keshavarzian M; Alavi F; Amiri P; Samiezadeh S
Med Biol Eng Comput; 2015 Jun; 53(6):477-86. PubMed ID: 25731689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The biomechanics of human femurs in axial and torsional loading: comparison of finite element analysis, human cadaveric femurs, and synthetic femurs.
Papini M; Zdero R; Schemitsch EH; Zalzal P
J Biomech Eng; 2007 Feb; 129(1):12-9. PubMed ID: 17227093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Examining agreement between finite element modelling methodologies in predicting pathological fracture risk in proximal femurs with bone metastases.
O'Rourke D; Johnson LJ; Jagiello J; Taylor M
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2023 Apr; 104():105931. PubMed ID: 36906986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Patient-specific finite element analysis of femurs with cemented hip implants.
Katz Y; Lubovsky O; Yosibash Z
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2018 Oct; 58():74-89. PubMed ID: 30053643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Simulated lesions representative of metastatic disease predict proximal femur failure strength more accurately than idealized lesions.
Johnson JE; Brouillette MJ; Permeswaran PT; Miller BJ; Goetz JE
J Biomech; 2020 Jun; 106():109825. PubMed ID: 32517984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Pathological fracture prediction in patients with metastatic lesions can be improved with quantitative computed tomography based computer models.
Tanck E; van Aken JB; van der Linden YM; Schreuder HW; Binkowski M; Huizenga H; Verdonschot N
Bone; 2009 Oct; 45(4):777-83. PubMed ID: 19539798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Biomechanical assessment of vertebrae with lytic metastases with subject-specific finite element models.
Costa MC; Eltes P; Lazary A; Varga PP; Viceconti M; Dall'Ara E
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2019 Oct; 98():268-290. PubMed ID: 31280054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Fracture risk assessment and evaluation of femoroplasty in metastatic proximal femurs. An in vivo CT-based finite element study.
Sas A; Tanck E; Wafa H; van der Linden Y; Sermon A; van Lenthe GH
J Orthop Res; 2023 Jan; 41(1):225-234. PubMed ID: 35368116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Mapping anisotropy of the proximal femur for enhanced image based finite element analysis.
Enns-Bray WS; Owoc JS; Nishiyama KK; Boyd SK
J Biomech; 2014 Oct; 47(13):3272-8. PubMed ID: 25219361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Finite element analysis potentially identifies nonessential prophylactic stabilization in femurs with metastatic disease.
Johnson JE; Goetz JE; Brouillette MJ; Miller BJ
Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2022 Sep; 236(9):1297-1308. PubMed ID: 35787214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A CT-based high-order finite element analysis of the human proximal femur compared to in-vitro experiments.
Yosibash Z; Padan R; Joskowicz L; Milgrom C
J Biomech Eng; 2007 Jun; 129(3):297-309. PubMed ID: 17536896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Experimental validation of finite element model for proximal composite femur using optical measurements.
Grassi L; Väänänen SP; Amin Yavari S; Weinans H; Jurvelin JS; Zadpoor AA; Isaksson H
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2013 May; 21():86-94. PubMed ID: 23510970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Experimental validation of a voxel-based finite element model simulating femoroplasty of lytic lesions in the proximal femur.
Sas A; Sermon A; van Lenthe GH
Sci Rep; 2022 May; 12(1):7602. PubMed ID: 35534595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Left-right differences in the proximal femur's strength of post-menopausal women: a multicentric finite element study.
Taddei F; Falcinelli C; Balistreri L; Henys P; Baruffaldi F; Sigurdsson S; Gudnason V; Harris TB; Dietzel R; Armbrecht G; Boutroy S; Schileo E
Osteoporos Int; 2016 Apr; 27(4):1519-1528. PubMed ID: 26576543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A robust 3D finite element simulation of human proximal femur progressive fracture under stance load with experimental validation.
Hambli R; Allaoui S
Ann Biomed Eng; 2013 Dec; 41(12):2515-27. PubMed ID: 23864338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
