132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31387122)
1. Computed Tomographic Evaluation of Adjacent Segment Motion after Ex Vivo Fusion of Equine Third and Fourth Cervical Vertebrae.
Schulze N; Ehrle A; Weller R; Fritsch G; Gernhardt J; Ben Romdhane R; Lischer C
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol; 2020 Jan; 33(1):1-8. PubMed ID: 31387122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Biomechanical comparison of adjacent segmental motion after ventral cervical fixation with varying angles of lordosis.
Hwang SH; Kayanja M; Milks RA; Benzel EC
Spine J; 2007; 7(2):216-21. PubMed ID: 17321972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Biomechanical assessment of the effects of vertebral distraction-fusion techniques on the adjacent segment of canine cervical vertebrae.
Hakozaki T; Ichinohe T; Kanno N; Yogo T; Harada Y; Inaba T; Kasai Y; Hara Y
Am J Vet Res; 2016 Nov; 77(11):1194-1199. PubMed ID: 27805449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Intervertebral kinematics of the cervical spine before, during, and after high-velocity low-amplitude manipulation.
Anderst WJ; Gale T; LeVasseur C; Raj S; Gongaware K; Schneider M
Spine J; 2018 Dec; 18(12):2333-2342. PubMed ID: 30142458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Zero-profile hybrid fusion construct versus 2-level plate fixation to treat adjacent-level disease in the cervical spine.
Healy AT; Sundar SJ; Cardenas RJ; Mageswaran P; Benzel EC; Mroz TE; Francis TB
J Neurosurg Spine; 2014 Nov; 21(5):753-60. PubMed ID: 25170655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Can an Endplate-conformed Cervical Cage Provide a Better Biomechanical Environment than a Typical Non-conformed Cage?: A Finite Element Model and Cadaver Study.
Zhang F; Xu HC; Yin B; Xia XL; Ma XS; Wang HL; Yin J; Shao MH; Lyu FZ; Jiang JY
Orthop Surg; 2016 Aug; 8(3):367-76. PubMed ID: 27627721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Biomechanical evaluation of a novel total cervical prosthesis in a single-level cervical subtotal corpectomy model: an in vitro human cadaveric study.
Wu ZX; Han BJ; Zhao X; Kong L; Liu D; Cui G; Lei W
J Surg Res; 2012 Jun; 175(1):76-81. PubMed ID: 21492873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cervical kinematics after fusion and bryan disc arthroplasty.
Sasso RC; Best NM
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2008 Feb; 21(1):19-22. PubMed ID: 18418131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Artificial disc replacement combined with fusion versus two-level fusion in cervical two-level disc disease.
Shin DA; Yi S; Yoon DH; Kim KN; Shin HC
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 May; 34(11):1153-9; discussion 1160-1. PubMed ID: 19444062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Disc replacement adjacent to cervical fusion: a biomechanical comparison of hybrid construct versus two-level fusion.
Lee MJ; Dumonski M; Phillips FM; Voronov LI; Renner SM; Carandang G; Havey RM; Patwardhan AG
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2011 Nov; 36(23):1932-9. PubMed ID: 21289581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Correlation of radiostereometric measured cervical range of motion with clinical radiographic findings after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.
Park SA; Fayyazi AH; Ordway NR; Sun MH; Fredrickson BE; Yuan HA
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Apr; 34(7):680-6. PubMed ID: 19333099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Kinematics of the cervical adjacent segments after disc arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Anderson PA; Sasso RC; Hipp J; Norvell DC; Raich A; Hashimoto R
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2012 Oct; 37(22 Suppl):S85-95. PubMed ID: 22885834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Is the behavior of disc replacement adjacent to fusion affected by the location of the fused level in hybrid surgery?
Wu TK; Meng Y; Wang BY; Hong Y; Rong X; Ding C; Chen H; Liu H
Spine J; 2018 Dec; 18(12):2171-2180. PubMed ID: 29709550
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effect of two-level total disc replacement on cervical spine kinematics.
Phillips FM; Tzermiadianos MN; Voronov LI; Havey RM; Carandang G; Dooris A; Patwardhan AG
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2009 Oct; 34(22):E794-9. PubMed ID: 19829242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Changes in cervical range of motion and sagittal alignment in early and late phases after total disc replacement: radiographic follow-up exceeding 2 years.
Ahn PG; Kim KN; Moon SW; Kim KS
J Neurosurg Spine; 2009 Dec; 11(6):688-95. PubMed ID: 19951021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. An in vitro biomechanical comparison of a locking compression plate fixation and kerf cut cylinder fixation for ventral arthrodesis of the fourth and the fifth equine cervical vertebrae.
Reardon RJ; Bailey R; Walmsley JP; Heller J; Lischer C
Vet Surg; 2010 Dec; 39(8):980-90. PubMed ID: 20880140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Evaluation of Three Human Cervical Fusion Implants for Use in the Canine Cervical Vertebral Column.
Morrison EJ; Litsky AS; Allen MJ; Fosgate GT; Hettlich BF
Vet Surg; 2016 Oct; 45(7):901-908. PubMed ID: 27598029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Adjacent-level range of motion and intradiscal pressure after posterior cervical decompression and fixation: an in vitro human cadaveric model.
Kretzer RM; Hsu W; Hu N; Umekoji H; Jallo GI; McAfee PC; Tortolani PJ; Cunningham BW
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2012 Jun; 37(13):E778-85. PubMed ID: 22228326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
