137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32517984)
1. 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]
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. To what extent can linear finite element models of human femora predict failure under stance and fall loading configurations?
Schileo E; Balistreri L; Grassi L; Cristofolini L; Taddei F
J Biomech; 2014 Nov; 47(14):3531-8. PubMed ID: 25261321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Finite element analysis and CT-based structural rigidity analysis to assess failure load in bones with simulated lytic defects.
Anez-Bustillos L; Derikx LC; Verdonschot N; Calderon N; Zurakowski D; Snyder BD; Nazarian A; Tanck E
Bone; 2014 Jan; 58():160-7. PubMed ID: 24145305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Finite Element Model-Computed Mechanical Behavior of Femurs with Metastatic Disease Varies Between Physiologic and Idealized Loading Simulations.
Johnson JE; Brouillette MJ; Miller BJ; Goetz JE
Biomed Eng Comput Biol; 2023; 14():11795972231166240. PubMed ID: 37020922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Prediction of strength and strain of the proximal femur by a CT-based finite element method.
Bessho M; Ohnishi I; Matsuyama J; Matsumoto T; Imai K; Nakamura K
J Biomech; 2007; 40(8):1745-53. PubMed ID: 17034798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Prediction of fracture load and stiffness of the proximal femur by CT-based specimen specific finite element analysis: cadaveric validation study.
Miura M; Nakamura J; Matsuura Y; Wako Y; Suzuki T; Hagiwara S; Orita S; Inage K; Kawarai Y; Sugano M; Nawata K; Ohtori S
BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2017 Dec; 18(1):536. PubMed ID: 29246133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Ct-based finite element models can be used to estimate experimentally measured failure loads in the proximal femur.
Koivumäki JE; Thevenot J; Pulkkinen P; Kuhn V; Link TM; Eckstein F; Jämsä T
Bone; 2012 Apr; 50(4):824-9. PubMed ID: 22306697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Femoral strength is better predicted by finite element models than QCT and DXA.
Cody DD; Gross GJ; Hou FJ; Spencer HJ; Goldstein SA; Fyhrie DP
J Biomech; 1999 Oct; 32(10):1013-20. PubMed ID: 10476839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cortical bone finite element models in the estimation of experimentally measured failure loads in the proximal femur.
Koivumäki JE; Thevenot J; Pulkkinen P; Kuhn V; Link TM; Eckstein F; Jämsä T
Bone; 2012 Oct; 51(4):737-40. PubMed ID: 22796418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The predictive ability of a QCT-FE model of the proximal femoral stiffness under multiple load cases is strongly influenced by experimental uncertainties.
Amini M; Reisinger A; Synek A; Hirtler L; Pahr D
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2023 Mar; 139():105664. PubMed ID: 36657193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Nonlinear voxel-based finite element model for strength assessment of healthy and metastatic proximal femurs.
Sas A; Ohs N; Tanck E; van Lenthe GH
Bone Rep; 2020 Jun; 12():100263. PubMed ID: 32322609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluation of finite element analysis for prediction of the strength reduction due to metastatic lesions in the femoral neck.
Cheal EJ; Hipp JA; Hayes WC
J Biomech; 1993 Mar; 26(3):251-64. PubMed ID: 8468338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Cortical bone mapping improves finite element strain prediction accuracy at the proximal femur.
Schileo E; Pitocchi J; Falcinelli C; Taddei F
Bone; 2020 Jul; 136():115348. PubMed ID: 32240847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Can CT image deblurring improve finite element predictions at the proximal femur?
Falcinelli C; Schileo E; Pakdel A; Whyne C; Cristofolini L; Taddei F
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2016 Oct; 63():337-351. PubMed ID: 27450036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Biomechanical model of a high risk impending pathologic fracture of the femur: lesion creation based on clinically implemented scoring systems.
Alexander GE; Gutierrez S; Nayak A; Palumbo BT; Cheong D; Letson GD; Santoni BG
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2013 Apr; 28(4):408-14. PubMed ID: 23597777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Modification to Mirels scoring system location component improves fracture prediction for metastatic disease of the proximal femur.
Amendola RL; Miller MA; Kaupp SM; Cleary RJ; Damron TA; Mann KA
BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2023 Jan; 24(1):65. PubMed ID: 36694156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. QCT-based finite element prediction of pathologic fractures in proximal femora with metastatic lesions.
Benca E; Synek A; Amini M; Kainberger F; Hirtler L; Windhager R; Mayr W; Pahr DH
Sci Rep; 2019 Jul; 9(1):10305. PubMed ID: 31311994
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
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]
