Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 123

1.

Posterior component impingement after lumbar total disc replacement: a radiographic analysis of 66 ProDisc-L prostheses in 56 patients.

Käfer W, Clessienne CB, Däxle M, Kocak T, Reichel H, Cakir B.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Oct 15;33(22):2444-9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318182c37b.

PMID:
18923322
2.

In vivo functional performance of failed Prodisc-L devices: retrieval analysis of lumbar total disc replacements.

Lebl DR, Cammisa FP, Girardi FP, Wright T, Abjornson C.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Sep 1;37(19):E1209-17. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31825ab6c1.

PMID:
22531474
3.

Factors influencing segmental range of motion after lumbar total disc replacement using the ProDisc II prosthesis.

Kim DH, Ryu KS, Kim MK, Park CK.

J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Aug;7(2):131-8.

PMID:
17688051
4.

Biomechanical evaluation of the kinematics of the cadaver lumbar spine following disc replacement with the ProDisc-L prosthesis.

Demetropoulos CK, Sengupta DK, Knaub MA, Wiater BP, Abjornson C, Truumees E, Herkowitz HN.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Jan 1;35(1):26-31. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c4eb9a.

PMID:
20042953
5.

The role of prosthesis design on segmental biomechanics: semi-constrained versus unconstrained prostheses and anterior versus posterior centre of rotation.

Wilke HJ, Schmidt R, Richter M, Schmoelz W, Reichel H, Cakir B.

Eur Spine J. 2012 Jun;21 Suppl 5:S577-84. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1552-1. Epub 2010 Sep 10.

6.

Effect of increasing implant height on lumbar spine kinematics and foraminal size using the ProDisc-L prosthesis.

Gaffey JL, Ghanayem AJ, Voronov ML, Havey RM, Carandang G, Abjornson C, Patwardhan AG.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Sep 1;35(19):1777-82. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ebaa4d.

PMID:
20700082
7.

Intraoperative determination of lumbar prosthesis endplate lordotic angulation to improve motion.

Laouissat F, Allain J, Delécrin J.

Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015 Feb;101(1):109-13. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2014.11.008. Epub 2015 Jan 8.

8.
9.

Measurement error of lumbar total disc replacement range of motion.

Lim MR, Loder RT, Huang RC, Lyman S, Zhang K, Sama A, Papadopoulos EC, Warner K, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 May 1;31(10):E291-7.

PMID:
16648735
10.

Comparison of Cobb technique, quantitative motion analysis, and radiostereometric analysis in measurement of segmental range of motions after lumbar total disc arthroplasty.

Park SA, Ordway NR, Fayyazi AH, Fredrickson BE, Yuan HA.

J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009 Dec;22(8):602-9. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318198791e.

PMID:
19956035
11.

The effect of a mismatched center of rotation on the clinical outcomes and flexion-extension range of motion: lumbar total disk replacement using mobidisc at a 5.5-year follow-up.

Lee CS, Lee DH, Hwang CJ, Kim H, Noh H.

J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014 May;27(3):148-53. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318254e82b.

PMID:
22525508
12.

Lumbar total disc replacement impingement sensitivity to disc height distraction, spinal sagittal orientation, implant position, and implant lordosis.

Rundell SA, Day JS, Isaza J, Guillory S, Kurtz SM.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 May 1;37(10):E590-8. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318241e415.

PMID:
22146286
13.

Does Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease Influence Femoroacetabular Flexion in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty?

Esposito CI, Miller TT, Kim HJ, Barlow BT, Wright TM, Padgett DE, Jerabek SA, Mayman DJ.

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Aug;474(8):1788-97. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4787-2. Epub 2016 Mar 28.

14.
15.

Response of Charité total disc replacement under physiologic loads: prosthesis component motion patterns.

O'Leary P, Nicolakis M, Lorenz MA, Voronov LI, Zindrick MR, Ghanayem A, Havey RM, Carandang G, Sartori M, Gaitanis IN, Fronczak S, Patwardhan AG.

Spine J. 2005 Nov-Dec;5(6):590-9.

PMID:
16291097
16.

Significance of angular mismatch between vertebral endplate and prosthetic endplate in lumbar total disc replacement.

Lee CS, Chung SS, Oh SK, You JW.

J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011 May;24(3):183-8. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181eb5214.

PMID:
20844454
17.

In situ contact analysis of the prosthesis components of Prodisc-L in lumbar spine following total disc replacement.

Chen WM, Park C, Lee K, Lee S.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Sep 15;34(20):E716-23. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ae23d1.

PMID:
19752690
18.

Index level mobility after total lumbar disc replacement: is it beneficial or detrimental?

Cakir B, Schmidt R, Mattes T, Fraitzl CR, Reichel H, Käfer W.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Apr 20;34(9):917-23. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819b213c.

PMID:
19532000
19.

Measurement of total disc replacement radiographic range of motion: a comparison of two techniques.

Lim MR, Girardi FP, Zhang K, Huang RC, Peterson MG, Cammisa FP Jr.

J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005 Jun;18(3):252-6.

PMID:
15905770
20.

Mobility of lumbar segments instrumented with a ProDisc II prosthesis: a two-year follow-up study.

Leivseth G, Braaten S, Frobin W, Brinckmann P.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Jul 1;31(15):1726-33.

PMID:
16816770

Supplemental Content

Support Center