118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35589335)
1. Sacral Prosthesis Substitution as a System of Spinopelvic Reconstruction After Total Sacrectomy: Assessment Using the Finite Element Method.
Ana María MC; Juan Antonio MB
Int J Spine Surg; 2022 Jun; 16(3):512-520. PubMed ID: 35589335
[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. 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]
4. A novel three dimensional-printed biomechanically evaluated patient-specific sacral implant in spinopelvic reconstruction after total
Lv Z; Li J; Yang Z; Li X; Yang Q; Li Z
Front Bioeng Biotechnol; 2023; 11():1153801. PubMed ID: 37214294
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. What Are the Functional Outcomes After Total Sacrectomy Without Spinopelvic Reconstruction?
Kiatisevi P; Piyaskulkaew C; Kunakornsawat S; Sukunthanak B
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2017 Mar; 475(3):643-655. PubMed ID: 26911974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The strain at bone-implant interface determines the effect of spinopelvic reconstruction following total sacrectomy: a strain gauge analysis in various spinopelvic constructs.
Yu Y; Zhu R; Zeng ZL; Jia YW; Wu ZR; Ren YL; Chen B; Ding ZQ; Cheng LM
PLoS One; 2014; 9(1):e85298. PubMed ID: 24454839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Reconstruction of the pelvic ring after total
Wei R; Guo W; Yang R; Tang X; Yang Y; Ji T; Liang H
Bone Joint J; 2019 Jul; 101-B(7):880-888. PubMed ID: 31256665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Sacral tumor resection and the impact on pelvic incidence.
Gottfried ON; Omeis I; Mehta VA; Solakoglu C; Gokaslan ZL; Wolinsky JP
J Neurosurg Spine; 2011 Jan; 14(1):78-84. PubMed ID: 21142465
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [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]
11. Surgical techniques for total sacrectomy and spinopelvic reconstruction.
Zhang HY; Thongtrangan I; Balabhadra RS; Murovic JA; Kim DH
Neurosurg Focus; 2003 Aug; 15(2):E5. PubMed ID: 15350036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Surgical techniques for spinopelvic reconstruction following total sacrectomy: a systematic review.
Bederman SS; Shah KN; Hassan JM; Hoang BH; Kiester PD; Bhatia NN
Eur Spine J; 2014 Feb; 23(2):305-19. PubMed ID: 24150036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Compassionate use of a custom 3D-printed sacral implant for revision of failing sacrectomy: case report.
Chatain GP; Finn M
J Neurosurg Spine; 2020 May; 33(4):513-518. PubMed ID: 32442976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Trans-iliosacral plating for vertically unstable fractures of sacral spine associated with spinopelvic dissociation: A cadaveric study.
Padalkar P; Pereira BP; Kathare A; Sun KK; Kagda F; Joseph T
Indian J Orthop; 2012 May; 46(3):274-8. PubMed ID: 22719112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. En bloc sacrectomy and reconstruction: technique modification for pelvic fixation.
Newman CB; Keshavarzi S; Aryan HE
Surg Neurol; 2009 Dec; 72(6):752-6; discussion 756. PubMed ID: 19665193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Optimal satellite rod constructs to mitigate rod failure following pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO): a finite element study.
Seyed Vosoughi A; Joukar A; Kiapour A; Parajuli D; Agarwal AK; Goel VK; Zavatsky J
Spine J; 2019 May; 19(5):931-941. PubMed ID: 30414992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A Novel Three-Dimensional Computational Method to Assess Rod Contour Deformation and to Map Bony Fusion in a Lumbopelvic Reconstruction After En-Bloc Sacrectomy.
Eltes PE; Turbucz M; Fayad J; Bereczki F; Szőke G; Terebessy T; Lacroix D; Varga PP; Lazary A
Front Surg; 2021; 8():698179. PubMed ID: 35071306
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Factors Associated With Spinopelvic Fixation Mechanical Failure After Total Sacrectomy.
Tang X; Yang R; Qu H; Cai Z; Guo W
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2018 Sep; 43(18):1268-1274. PubMed ID: 29538241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Sacrectomy for primary sacral tumors.
Sahakitrungruang C; Chantra K; Dusitanond N; Atittharnsakul P; Rojanasakul A
Dis Colon Rectum; 2009 May; 52(5):913-8. PubMed ID: 19502856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
