164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31655451)
1. Biomechanical comparison of a 3D-printed sacrum prosthesis versus rod-screw systems for reconstruction after total sacrectomy: A finite element analysis.
Huang S; Ji T; Guo W
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2019 Dec; 70():203-208. PubMed ID: 31655451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of four reconstruction methods after total sacrectomy: a finite element study.
Zhu R; Cheng LM; Yu Y; Zander T; Chen B; Rohlmann A
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2012 Oct; 27(8):771-6. PubMed ID: 22705158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. One-step reconstruction with a 3D-printed, custom-made prosthesis after total en bloc sacrectomy: a technical note.
Wei R; Guo W; Ji T; Zhang Y; Liang H
Eur Spine J; 2017 Jul; 26(7):1902-1909. PubMed ID: 27844229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Reconstruction after total sacrectomy using a new instrumentation technique: a biomechanical comparison.
Kawahara N; Murakami H; Yoshida A; Sakamoto J; Oda J; Tomita K
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Jul; 28(14):1567-72. PubMed ID: 12865846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Biomechanical comparison of spinopelvic reconstruction techniques in the setting of total sacrectomy.
Mindea SA; Chinthakunta S; Moldavsky M; Gudipally M; Khalil S
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2012 Dec; 37(26):E1622-7. PubMed ID: 23038619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Biomechanics of artificial pedicle fixation in a 3D-printed prosthesis after total en bloc spondylectomy: a finite element analysis.
Wang X; Xu H; Han Y; Wu J; Song Y; Jiang Y; Wang J; Miao J
J Orthop Surg Res; 2021 Mar; 16(1):213. PubMed ID: 33761991
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A finite element analysis of the pelvic reconstruction using fibular transplantation fixed with four different rod-screw systems after type I resection.
Jia YW; Cheng LM; Yu GR; DU CF; Yang ZY; Yu Y; Ding ZQ
Chin Med J (Engl); 2008 Feb; 121(4):321-6. PubMed ID: 18304464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comprehensive biomechanical analysis of three reconstruction techniques following total sacrectomy: an in vitro human cadaveric model.
Macki M; De la Garza-Ramos R; Murgatroyd AA; Mullinix KP; Sun X; Cunningham BW; McCutcheon BA; Bydon M; Gokaslan ZL
J Neurosurg Spine; 2017 Nov; 27(5):570-577. PubMed ID: 28777063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Development and current situation of reconstruction methods following total sacrectomy].
Huang S; Ji T; Guo W
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2018 May; 32(5):513-518. PubMed ID: 29806335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Biomechanical evaluation of reconstructed lumbosacral spine after total sacrectomy.
Murakami H; Kawahara N; Tomita K; Sakamoto J; Oda J
J Orthop Sci; 2002; 7(6):658-64. PubMed ID: 12486469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Finite element analysis of lumbosacral reconstruction after partial sacrectomy.
Zheng L; Li Z; Li Q; Ji F; Cai Z
Med Sci Monit; 2014 May; 20():889-93. PubMed ID: 24874025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Structural stability of different reconstruction techniques following total sacrectomy: a biomechanical study.
Cheng L; Yu Y; Zhu R; Lv H; Jia Y; Zeng Z; Chen B; Ding Z
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2011 Dec; 26(10):977-81. PubMed ID: 21703741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Spinal instrumentation after complete resection of the last lumbar vertebra: an in vitro biomechanical study after L5 spondylectomy.
Bartanusz V; Muzumdar A; Hussain M; Moldavsky M; Bucklen B; Khalil S
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2011 Jun; 36(13):1017-21. PubMed ID: 21224772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A novel combined hemipelvic endoprosthesis for peri-acetabular tumours involving sacroiliac joint: a finite element study.
Wang B; Sun P; Xie X; Wu W; Tu J; Ouyang J; Shen J
Int Orthop; 2015 Nov; 39(11):2253-9. PubMed ID: 26183143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison among load-, ROM-, and displacement-controlled methods used in the lumbosacral nonlinear finite-element analysis.
Chuang WH; Kuo YJ; Lin SC; Wang CW; Chen SH; Chen YJ; Hwang JR
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Mar; 38(5):E276-85. PubMed ID: 23250233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of Different Insertion Techniques for Lumbosacral Fixation Improvement: A Finite Element Study.
Han DP; Wang JY
Orthop Surg; 2020 Feb; 12(1):262-268. PubMed ID: 32077260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Stress distribution of different lumbar posterior pedicle screw insertion techniques: a combination study of finite element analysis and biomechanical test.
Song M; Sun K; Li Z; Zong J; Tian X; Ma K; Wang S
Sci Rep; 2021 Jun; 11(1):12968. PubMed ID: 34155224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Limiting interpedicular screw displacement increases shear forces in screws: A finite element study.
Lima LVPC; Charles YP; Rouch P; Skalli W
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res; 2017 Sep; 103(5):721-726. PubMed ID: 28554810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Biomechanical study of anterior and posterior pelvic rings using pedicle screw fixation for Tile C1 pelvic fractures: Finite element analysis.
Song Y; Shao C; Yang X; Lin F
PLoS One; 2022; 17(8):e0273351. PubMed ID: 36006983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Total sacrectomy and reconstruction for sacral tumors.
Doita M; Harada T; Iguchi T; Sumi M; Sha H; Yoshiya S; Kurosaka M
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Aug; 28(15):E296-301. PubMed ID: 12897508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
