Log in

Relevant bibliographies by topics / Biomechanical comparison / Journal articles

To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Biomechanical comparison.

Journal articles on the topic 'Biomechanical comparison'

Author: Grafiati

Published: 4 June 2021

Last updated: 3 February 2022

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Biomechanical comparison.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

1

Post, Andrew, T. Blaine Hoshizaki, Michael D. Gilchrist, David Koncan, Lauren Dawson, Wesley Chen, Andrée-Anne Ledoux, Roger Zemek, and _. _. "A comparison in a youth population between those with and without a history of concussion using biomechanical reconstruction." Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics 19, no. 4 (April 2017): 502–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/2016.10.peds16449.

Full text

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE Concussion is a common topic of research as a result of the short- and long-term effects it can have on the affected individual. Of particular interest is whether previous concussions can lead to a biomechanical susceptibility, or vulnerability, to incurring further head injuries, particularly for youth populations. The purpose of this research was to compare the impact biomechanics of a concussive event in terms of acceleration and brain strains of 2 groups of youths: those who had incurred a previous concussion and those who had not. It was hypothesized that the youths with a history of concussion would have lower-magnitude biomechanical impact measures than those who had never suffered a previous concussion. METHODS Youths who had suffered a concussion were recruited from emergency departments across Canada. This pool of patients was then separated into 2 categories based on their history of concussion: those who had incurred 1 or more previous concussions, and those who had never suffered a concussion. The impact event that resulted in the brain injury was reconstructed biomechanically using computational, physical, and finite element modeling techniques. The output of the events was measured in biomechanical parameters such as energy, force, acceleration, and brain tissue strain to determine if those patients who had a previous concussion sustained a brain injury at lower magnitudes than those who had no previously reported concussion. RESULTS The results demonstrated that there was no biomechanical variable that could distinguish between the concussion groups with a history of concussion versus no history of concussion. CONCLUSIONS The results suggest that there is no measureable biomechanical vulnerability to head impact related to a history of concussions in this youth population. This may be a reflection of the long time between the previous concussion and the one reconstructed in the laboratory, where such a long period has been associated with recovery from injury.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

류시현. "Biomechanical Comparison of Taekwondo Apkubi." TAEKWONDO JOURNAL OF KUKKIWON 7, no. 2 (June 2016): 135–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.24881/tjk.2016.7.2.135.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Dos'Santos, Thomas, Alistair McBurnie, Christopher Thomas, Paul Comfort, and Paul A. Jones. "Biomechanical Comparison of Cutting Techniques." Strength & Conditioning Journal 41, no. 4 (August 2019): 40–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/ssc.0000000000000461.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Urchek, Ryan, and Spero Karas. "Biomechanical Comparison of Quadriceps and 6-Strand Hamstring Tendon Grafts in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction." Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 7, no. 10 (October 1, 2019): 232596711987911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967119879113.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: The quadriceps tendon is becoming a popular graft option for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Few studies have examined the biomechanics of the quadriceps tendon compared with more commonly used graft choices. Due to the risk associated with small-diameter hamstring tendon grafts, various modifications of hamstring tendon preparation techniques have been described—specifically, a tripled, 6-strand hamstring tendon construct. This is the first study to directly compare the biomechanical properties of quadriceps tendon and hamstring tendon grafts. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to quantify the biomechanical properties of the quadriceps tendon and 6-strand hamstring tendon grafts, specifically evaluating ultimate load to failure, load at 3 mm of displacement, and stiffness. These parameters characterize the time zero, in vitro, static tensile properties of these graft options. Our hypothesis was that for grafts of similar size, there would not be a significant difference in the biomechanical properties. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Quadriceps and hamstring tendon grafts were harvested from 6 human cadaveric knees (mean age, 61.17 ± 10.38 years). These matched grafts were prepared and biomechanically tested using an all-electric dynamic test load system. The mean diameter, stiffness, ultimate load to failure, and load to 3 mm of displacement were evaluated and analyzed. Results: The mean diameters of the 6-strand hamstring and quadriceps tendons were 11.33 and 10.16 mm, respectively ( P = .03). Despite these significantly different diameters, no differences were found in graft ultimate load to failure or load at 3 mm of displacement. The 6-strand hamstring tendon graft was significantly stiffer compared with the quadriceps tendon (1147.65 vs 808.65 N/mm; P = .04). Conclusion: The 6-strand hamstring tendon and quadriceps tendon graft had similar biomechanical properties with respect to ultimate load to failure and load at 3 mm of displacement in 6 matched cadaveric specimens. Both grafts were significantly stiffer than the native ACL, and the hamstring tendon construct was significantly stiffer than the quadriceps tendon. Clinical Relevance: The quadriceps tendon graft is a reliable alternative to a 6-strand hamstring tendon graft for ACL reconstruction.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Shaw, James A. "A biomechanical comparison of scaphoid screws." Journal of Hand Surgery 12, no. 3 (May 1987): 347–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0363-5023(87)80002-3.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

VILLAGE, J., J. B. MORRISON, and A. LEYLAND. "Biomechanical comparison of carpet-stretching devices." Ergonomics 36, no. 8 (August 1993): 899–909. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139308967955.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Mihara, Hisanori, Boyle C. Cheng, Stephen M. David, Katsuhiro Ohnari, and Thomas A. Zdeblick. "Biomechanical Comparison of Posterior Cervical Fixation." Spine 26, no. 15 (August 2001): 1662–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200108010-00007.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Thomas, Susan Sienko, and Terry J. Supan. "A Comparison of Current Biomechanical Terms." JPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics 2, no. 2 (1990): 107???114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00008526-199001000-00005.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Losanoff, Julian E., Andrea D. Collier, Colette C. Wagner-Mann, Bruce W. Richman, Harold Huff, Fu-hung Hsieh, Alberto Diaz-Arias, and James W. Jones. "Biomechanical comparison of median sternotomy closures." Annals of Thoracic Surgery 77, no. 1 (January 2004): 203–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0003-4975(03)01468-1.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Thomas, Kristen, Alan Litsky, Grant Jones, and Julie Y. Bishop. "Biomechanical Comparison of Coracoclavicular Reconstructive Techniques." American Journal of Sports Medicine 39, no. 4 (January 21, 2011): 804–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0363546510390482.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Lundy, Douglas W., Mary J. Albert, and William C. Hutton. "Biomechanical Comparison of Hybrid External Fixators." Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 12, no. 7 (September 1998): 496–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005131-199809000-00013.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Deguchi, Masao, Andrew J. Rapoff, and Thomas A. Zdeblick. "Biomechanical Comparison of Spondylolysis Fixation Techniques." Spine 24, no. 4 (February 1999): 328–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199902150-00004.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Papagiannopoulos, G., D. J. Pratt, and P. H. Rees. "Derby intramedullary nail — A biomechanical comparison." Journal of Biomedical Engineering 7, no. 4 (October 1985): 313–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0141-5425(85)90061-5.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Pratt, D. J., G. Papagiannopoulos, and P. H. Rees. "Derby intramedullary nail: Further biomechanical comparison." Journal of Biomedical Engineering 9, no. 1 (January 1987): 84–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0141-5425(87)90105-1.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

Xu, Hao, Wen Ju, Neng Xu, Xiaojian Zhang, Xiaodong Zhu, LiFan Zhu, Xuefeng Qian, Fengbiao Wen, Weidong Wu, and Fugui Jiang. "Biomechanical Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With 1 or 2 Cages by Finite-Element Analysis." Operative Neurosurgery 73, no. 2 (April 29, 2013): ons198—ons205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000430320.39870.f7.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract BACKGROUND: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion with 1 cage have been shown to have similar biomechanics compared with the use of 2 cages. However, there have been no reports on the biomechanical differences between using 1 or 2 cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery. OBJECTIVE: To determine the biomechanical differences between the use of 1 or 2 cages in TLIF by finite-element analysis. METHODS: Three validated finite-element models of the L3-L5 lumbar segment were created (intact model and single- and paired-cage TLIF models). To study the biomechanics, a compressive preload of 400 N over 7.5 N-m was applied to the superior surfaces of the L3 vertebral body to simulate flexion, extension, rotation, and lateral bending. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the range of motion between single-cage and paired-cage TLIF models, < 1° for all loading cases. Cage stress was high in the single-cage TLIF model under all loading conditions. Bone graft stress was high in the single-cage TLIF model. Pedicle screw stress was higher in the single-cage compared with the paired-cage TLIF. CONCLUSION: Single-cage TLIF approximates biomechanical stability and increases the stress of the bone graft. The use of a single cage may simplify the standard TLIF procedure, shorten operative times, decrease cost, and provide satisfactory clinical outcomes. Thus, single-cage TLIF is a useful alternative to traditional 2-cage TLIF.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Moens, Noël, Luis Gaitero, Alex zur Linden, Fiona James, Gabrielle Monteith, Robert Runciman, and Guillaume Leblond. "Computed Tomography and Biomechanical Comparison between Trans-Articular Screw Fixation and 2 Polymethylmethacrylate Cemented Constructs for Ventral Atlantoaxial Stabilization." Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology 31, no. 05 (August 20, 2018): 344–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1661397.

Full text

Abstract:

Objectives Canine ventral atlantoaxial stabilization methods have been constantly evolving over the past few decades. Yet, proper experimental data comparing the feasibility and biomechanical properties of currently available surgical options are lacking. The aims of this study were (1) to describe and compare the safety profiles and biomechanical properties of three ventral atlantoaxial stabilization methods; and (2) to test whether recently reported optimal implant definitions constitute reasonable guidelines. Methods Three types of atlantoaxial stabilization including trans-articular screw fixation (TSF) and two cemented constructs (MI5 and MI6) were performed in 21 Beagle cadavers. Post-surgical computed tomography (CT) images of the constructs and biomechanical data were then generated and statistically analysed. Results The CT data revealed that TSF achieved significantly better apposition than cemented constructs. Out of 91 screws positioned, 4.4% were graded as dangerous and 86.8% as optimal. Optimal positioning was most challenging to obtain for mono-cortical screws. Analysis of biomechanical data suggested that all three techniques could likely achieve similar rates of atlantoaxial fusion when submitted to physiological loads but also that cemented constructs were less prone to failure compared with TSF. Clinical Significance This study provides evidence that all three techniques are technically feasible and biomechanically viable but also that the evaluated surgical guidelines could be improved.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Haug, Richard H., and Bethany L. Serafin. "Mandibular Angle Fractures: A Clinical and Biomechanical Comparison—the Works of Ellis and Haug." Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction 1, no. 1 (November 2008): 31–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1098961.

Full text

Abstract:

In a series of articles spanning 8 years, Ed Ellis reviewed the clinical results of the treatment of 478 mandibular angle fractures managed by eight different techniques. During a series of benchtop investigations employing polyurethane synthetic mandible replicas, Rich Haug investigated the biomechanical behavior of approximately 15 different techniques designed to reconstruct mandibular angle fractures. This article reviews these two series of investigations in an attempt to gain insight into the biomechanical and biological factors that affect the successful reconstruction of mandibular angle fractures. It appears that the current techniques used to reconstruct mandibular angle fractures are sound from the standpoint of biomechanics within a range of forces encountered during clinical function. It also appears that an unsuccessful reconstruction is based on a biological result of a behavioral issue such as noncompliance, substance abuse, and/or nutritional or immune compromise.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

Kandziora, Frank, Robert Pflugmacher, Katrin Ludwig, Georg Duda, Thomas Mittlmeier, and Norbert P. Haas. "Biomechanical comparison of four anterior atlantoaxial plate systems." Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 96, no. 3 (April 2002): 313–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/spi.2002.96.3.0313.

Full text

Abstract:

Object. The optimum fixation method to achieve atlantoaxial fusion after resection of the odontoid process remains a matter of discussion. Anterior atlantoaxial plate fixation has been described by Harms as a fixation procedure to be performed after transoral odontoid resection. In recent biomechanical and clinical studies investigators have shown that this procedure is a good alternative to established posterior atlantoaxial fixation techniques, but they have also indicated the biomechanical disadvantages of the Harms plate design. Therefore, three new anterior atlantoaxial plate designs were developed. The purpose of this study was to compare these three newly designed plate systems biomechanically with that used in Harms anterior atlantoaxial plate fixation. Methods. Twenty-four human craniocervical cadaveric specimens were tested in flexion, extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending in a nonconstrained testing apparatus by using a nondestructive stiffness method. Three-dimensional displacement of C1–2 was measured with an optical measurement system. Six different groups were examined: 1) control (24 specimens); 2) unstable (after odontoidectomy and dissection of the atlantoaxial ligaments; 24 specimens); 3) Harms (anterior atlantoaxial plate fixation according to Harms; six specimens); 4) subarticular atlantoaxial plate (SAAP; six specimens); 5) transpedicular atlantoaxial plate (TAAP; six specimens); and 6) subarticular atlantoaxial locking plate (SAALP; six specimens). Stiffness, range of motion, and neutral and elastic zones were determined. Compared with the Harms plate, stiffness was significantly higher when methods for placing the SAAP, TAAP, and SAALP devices were used (p < 0.05). Angular displacement of SAALPs was less than that demonstrated in any other group (p < 0.05). Stiffness values in any direction were significantly greater for the SAALP-fixed specimens than for the TAAP, SAAP, Harms, control, or unstable specimens (p < 0.05). Conclusions. Experimentally, the SAAP, TAAP, and Harms plate achieved less stable fixation than the SAALP. Therefore, if transoral odontoid resection is performed, SAALP-fixed spines will provide significantly improved stability compared with previous fixation devices and methods. This may be a necessary prerequisite for a fast and uneventful osseous fusion even without additional posterior stabilization.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

Bambakidis, Nicholas C., Iman Feiz-Erfan, Eric M. Horn, L. Fernando Gonzalez, Seungwon Baek, K. Zafer Yüksel, Anna G. U. Brantley, Volker K. H. Sonntag, and Neil R. Crawford. "Biomechanical comparison of occipitoatlantal screw fixation techniques." Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 8, no. 2 (February 2008): 143–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/spi/2008/8/2/143.

Full text

Abstract:

Object The stability provided by 3 occipitoatlantal fixation techniques (occiput [Oc]–C1 transarticular screws, occipital keel screws rigidly interconnected with C-1 lateral mass screws, and suboccipital/sublaminar wired contoured rod) were compared. Methods Seven human cadaveric specimens received transarticular screws and 7 received occipital keel–C1 lateral mass screws. All specimens later underwent contoured rod fixation. All conditions were studied with and without placement of a structural graft wired between the skull base and C-1 lamina. Specimens were loaded quasistatically using pure moments to induce flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation while recording segmental motion optoelectronically. Flexibility was measured immediately postoperatively and after 10,000 cycles of fatigue. Results Application of Oc–C1 transarticular screws, with a wired graft, reduced the mean range of motion (ROM) to 3% of normal. Occipital keel–C1 lateral mass screws (also with graft) offered less stability than transarticular screws during extension and lateral bending (p < 0.02), reducing ROM to 17% of normal. The wired contoured rod reduced motion to 31% of normal, providing significantly less stability than either screw fixation technique. Fatigue increased motion in constructs fitted with transarticular screws, keel screws/lateral mass screw constructs, and contoured wired rods, by means of 19, 5, and 26%, respectively. In all constructs, adding a structural graft significantly improved stability, but the extent depended on the loading direction. Conclusions Assuming the presence of mild C1–2 instability, Oc–C1 transarticular screws and occipital keel–C1 lateral mass screws are approximately equivalent in performance for occipitoatlantal stabilization in promoting fusion. A posteriorly wired contoured rod is less likely to provide a good fusion environment because of less stabilizing potential and a greater likelihood of loosening with fatigue.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Marcolin, Giuseppe, Nicola Petrone, Carlo Reggiani, Fausto A. Panizzolo, and Antonio Paoli. "Biomechanical Comparison of Shorts With Different Pads." Medicine 94, no. 29 (July 2015): e1186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000001186.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Sladicka, Stephen J., Scott R. Duffin, and Joseph M. Erpelding. "A Biomechanical Strength Comparison of External Fixators." Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 44, no. 6 (June 1998): 965–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005373-199806000-00006.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

Yoshida, Ryu, Elifho Obopilwe, and Craig M. Rodner. "Biomechanical Comparison of Fifth Carpometacarpal Fusion Methods." Techniques in Orthopaedics 33, no. 4 (December 2018): 271–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/bto.0000000000000266.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

Yao, J. "Biomechanical Comparison of Contemporary Clavicle Fixation Devices." Yearbook of Hand and Upper Limb Surgery 2011 (January 2011): 219–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yhls.2011.04.030.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Sladicka, Stephen J., and Joseph M. Erpelding. "A BIOMECHANICAL STRENGTH COMPARISON OF EXTERNAL FIXATORS." Southern Medical Journal 88 (October 1995): S119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007611-199510001-00279.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

Marumoto, Jay M., Christopher Jordan, and Rod Akins. "A Biomechanical Comparison of Lateral Retinacular Releases." American Journal of Sports Medicine 23, no. 2 (March 1995): 151–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/036354659502300204.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Dun, Shouchen, Jeremy Loftice, Glenn S. Fleisig, David Kingsley, and James R. Andrews. "A Biomechanical Comparison of Youth Baseball Pitches." American Journal of Sports Medicine 36, no. 4 (April 2008): 686–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0363546507310074.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

Yinger, Kent, Jason Scalise, Steven A. Olson, Brian K. Bay, and Christopher G. Finkemeier. "Biomechanical Comparison of Posterior Pelvic Ring Fixation." Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 17, no. 7 (August 2003): 481–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005131-200308000-00002.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

Wang, Cheng, Kevin Bell, Michael McClincy, Lloydine Jacobs, Ozgur Dede, James Roach, and Patrick Bosch. "Biomechanical Comparison of Ponte Osteotomy and Discectomy." Spine 40, no. 3 (February 2015): E141—E145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000697.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Stitgen, Andrea, Kathryn Garrels, Hiro Kobayashi, Ray Vanderby, James J. McCarthy, and Kenneth J. Noonan. "Biomechanical Comparison Between 2 Guided-growth Constructs." Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics 32, no. 2 (March 2012): 206–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/bpo.0b013e31823f09a3.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

LESKINEN, TIMO P. J. "Comparison of static and dynamic biomechanical models." Ergonomics 28, no. 1 (January 1985): 285–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140138508963135.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Naderi, Sait, Neil R. Crawford, Geun Sung Song, Volker K. H. Sonntag, and Curtis A. Dickman. "Biomechanical Comparison of C1-C2 Posterior Fixations." Spine 23, no. 18 (September 1998): 1946–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199809150-00005.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

Steinmann, John, Craig T. Tingey, Gina Cruz, and Qian Dai. "Biomechanical Comparison of Unipedicular Versus Bipedicular Kyphoplasty." Spine 30, no. 2 (January 2005): 201–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000150831.46856.87.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

Wilke, H. J., S. Krischak, and L. Claes. "BIOMECHANICAL COMPARISON OF CALF AND HUMAN SPINES." Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics 17, no. 1 (January 1997): 132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01241398-199701000-00047.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Crosbie, W. J., and A. C. Nicol. "Biomechanical comparison of two paraplegic gait patterns." Clinical Biomechanics 5, no. 2 (May 1990): 97–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0268-0033(90)90044-7.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

Renfree, Timothy, Bryan Conrad, and Thomas Wright. "Biomechanical Comparison of Contemporary Clavicle Fixation Devices." Journal of Hand Surgery 35, no. 4 (April 2010): 639–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.12.012.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Hilby, Darcy L., and Barry T. Bates. "A biomechanical comparison between two shotputting techniques." Journal of Biomechanics 22, no. 10 (January 1989): 1022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(89)90277-7.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

Wilke, Hans-Joachim, Stefan Krischak, and Lutz Claes. "Biomechanical comparison of calf and human spines." Journal of Orthopaedic Research 14, no. 3 (May 1996): 500–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.1100140321.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

Park, Won Man, Yoon Hyuk Kim, and Taek Yul Oh. "COMPARISON OF BIOMECHANICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THREE IMPLANTS IN TOTAL DISC REPLACEMENT OF LUMBAR SPINE(1B1 Orthopaedic & Rehabilitation Biomechanics I)." Proceedings of the Asian Pacific Conference on Biomechanics : emerging science and technology in biomechanics 2007.3 (2007): S23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1299/jsmeapbio.2007.3.s23.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

Bean, Bryan, Niall A. Smyth, Pooyan Abbasi, Brent Parks, and Walter C. Hembree. "Biomechanical Comparison of Zone 1 5th Metatarsal Base Fracture Fixation." Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics 5, no. 4 (October 1, 2020): 2473011420S0012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2473011420s00121.

Full text

Abstract:

Category: Basic Sciences/Biologics; Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: Zone 1 5th metatarsal base fractures are more common than zone 2 or 3 fractures, but significant debate still exists as to their optimum management, particularly for large fragments. The objective of this study was to compare the biomechanical strength of two headless compression screws versus a hook plate for fixation of large zone 1 5th metatarsal fractures. We hypothesized that hook plates would be biomechanically superior. Methods: Ten matched pairs of fresh-frozen 5th metatarsal cadaveric specimens were used. Large zone 1 avulsion fractures were simulated. Specimens were randomly assigned to fixation with two 2.5-mm headless compression screws or an anatomic 5th metatarsal hook plate. Specimens were mounted on a test frame and cyclically loaded through the plantar fascia, peroneus brevis tendon, and metatarsal base. Each specimen underwent 100 cycles at 50% physiological load (12 N on bone, 70 N on plantar fascia, 17.5 N on peroneus brevis), 100 cycles at 75% load (18 N on bone, 105 N on fascia, 26.25 N on peroneus brevis), and 100 cycles at 100% load (24 N on bone, 140 N on fascia, 35 N on peroneus brevis). Maximum cycles and maximum force were recorded. Results: The hook plate group had significantly higher cycles to completion of loading or failure compared with the screw group (270.7 +- 66.0 [range 100-300] cycles versus 178.6 +- 95.7 [range 24-300] cycles, respectively; P=0.011). Seven of 10 hook plate specimens and 2 of 10 screw specimens were intact at the maximum 300 cycles. Mean maximum force on the plantar fascia did not differ between the plate and screw groups (133.0 +- 22.1 [range 70-140]) N versus 119.0 +- 4.5 (range 70-140) N, respectively; P=0.098). Nine of 10 plate specimens and 5 of 10 screw specimens were intact at maximum force of 140 N. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first biomechanical study comparing fixation constructs for 5th metatarsal avulsion fractures while loading the plantar fascia, which is the primary deforming force in vivo. These data suggest an anatomic hook plate is biomechanically superior to headless compression screw fixation of large zone 1 5th metatarsal avulsion fractures, which may prove pertinent in the setting of morbid obesity, fracture comminution, and/or fracture nonunion. Limitations include the relatively small sample size and the use of cadaveric bone which imperfectly mimics living tissue.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

Nagelli, Christopher, Samuel Wordeman, Stephanie Di Stasi, Joshua Hoffman, Tiffany Marulli, and Timothy E. Hewett. "Biomechanical Deficits at the Hip in Athletes With ACL Reconstruction Are Ameliorated With Neuromuscular Training." American Journal of Sports Medicine 46, no. 11 (August 3, 2018): 2772–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0363546518787505.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: The efficacy of a neuromuscular training (NMT) program to ameliorate known hip biomechanical risk factors for athletes with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is currently unknown. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to quantify the effects of an NMT program on hip biomechanics among athletes with ACLR and to compare posttraining hip biomechanics with a control group. The hypotheses were that known hip biomechanical risk factors of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury would be significantly reduced among athletes with ACLR after the NMT program and that posttraining hip biomechanics between the ACLR and control cohorts would not differ. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Twenty-eight athletes (n = 18, ACLR; n = 10, uninjured) completed a 12-session NMT program. Biomechanical evaluation of a jump-landing task was done before and after completion of the program. Repeated measures analysis of variance was performed to understand the effect of NMT within the ACLR cohort. Two-way analysis of variance was used to compare both groups. Post hoc testing was done for significant interactions. Hip biomechanical variables at initial contact are reported. Results: The athletes with ACLR who completed the NMT program had a significant session × limb interaction ( P = .01) for hip external rotation moment and a significant main effect of session for hip flexion angle ( P = .049) and moment ( P < .001). There was a significant change for the involved ( P = .04; 528% increase) and uninvolved ( P = .04; 57% decrease) limbs from pre- to posttraining for hip rotation moment. The ACLR cohort had an increase in hip flexion angle (14% change) and a decrease in hip flexion moment (65% change) from pre- to posttraining. Posttraining comparison for these same hip biomechanical variables of interest revealed no significant interactions ( P > .05) between the ACLR and control cohorts. There was a significant main effect of group ( P = .02) for hip flexion angle, as the ACLR cohort demonstrated greater hip flexion angle than that of the control group. Conclusion: For athletes with ACLR, hip biomechanical measures of ACL injury risk show significant improvements after completion of an NMT program. Clinical Relevance: Athletes with ACLR who are participating in an NMT program may ameliorate known hip biomechanical risk factors for an ACL injury.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

Haid, Regis W., Kevin T. Foley, Gerald E. Rodts, and Bryan Barnes. "The Cervical Spine Study Group anterior cervical plate nomenclature." Neurosurgical Focus 12, no. 1 (January 2002): 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/foc.2002.12.1.16.

Full text

Abstract:

The authors review historical and biomechanical aspects of anterior cervical plate (ACP) systems. They propose a novel classification system for ACPs based on the biomechanical and graft-loading properties of these systems. A retrospective review of the literature comprising both clinical and laboratory investigations regarding the ACP system was undertaken. Comparison of each system is considered in the context of the biomechanical attributes and graft-loading properties of each type of plate. Salient characteristics reviewed include restriction of screw backout, screw-angle variability, and mobility at the screw–plate interface. A new classification system for ACPs is proposed that primarily considers the ability of the construct to restrict screw backout, as well as the properties of the plate–screw interface—that is, the capacity for rotational or translational movement. A new classification system is presented that provides unified, biomechanically descriptive nomenclature. Using this nomenclature, the ACP devices currently available and those developed in the future can be uniformly categorized.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

Al-Jadaan, Dhurgham A. Neamah. "Analytical Study to Indicate the Comparison in Biomechanical Variables of Handball Scoring." International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation 24, no. 02 (February 10, 2020): 224–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.37200/ijpr/v24i2/pr200327.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

Ford, Kevin R., Gregory D. Myer, Paula G. Melson, Shannon C. Darnell, Hermine I. Brunner, and Timothy E. Hewett. "Land-Jump Performance in Patients with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA): A Comparison to Matched Controls." International Journal of Rheumatology 2009 (2009): 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2009/478526.

Full text

Abstract:

Objective. The purpose of this study was to determine if high functioning children with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) with minimal disease activity have different biomechanics during high loading tasks compared to controls. Patients were included if they had minimal inflammation documented in one or both knees. Methods. The subject groups consisted of eleven patients with JIA and eleven sex, age, height, and weight matched controls. Sagittal plane kinematic and kinetics were calculated during a drop vertical jump maneuver. The Child Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ) was collected on each patient with JIA. Results. The subjects with JIA had increased knee () and hip flexion () compared to control subjects. Subjects with JIA also demonstrated decreased knee extensor moments during take-off () and ankle plantar flexor moments during landing () and take-off (). In the JIA group, increased hip extensor moments were predictive of increased disability (, ).Conclusions. Patients with JIA may demonstrate underlying biomechanical deviations compared to controls. In addition, biomechanical assessment of hip extensor mechanics during dynamic tasks may provide an objective assessment tool to determine overall function in patients with JIA.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

Zhang, Yali, Zhiwei Li, Lei Liu, Xuguang Han, Xiaomin Zhao, and Guoying Mu. "Comparison of Riboflavin/Ultraviolet-A Cross-Linking in Porcine, Rabbit, and Human Sclera." BioMed Research International 2014 (2014): 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/194204.

Full text

Abstract:

Purpose. To compare the biomechanical properties of porcine, rabbit, and human sclera before and after riboflavin/ultraviolet-A (UVA) collagen cross-linking (CXL).Methods. Eight rabbits, 8 porcine eyeballs, and 8 human eyeballs were included. One rabbit eye and half of each bisected human and porcine eyeball were treated with riboflavin/UVA CXL. Untreated fellow rabbit eyes and eyeball halves served as controls. A 10 mm × 20 mm scleral band was harvested from each specimen. From this band, two 3.5 mm × 15.0 mm strips were prepared for biomechanical testing. The biomechanical parameters were ultimate stress, stress and Young’s modulus.Results. Values of stress, and Young’s modulus showed that human sclera was 4 times stiffer than porcine sclera and 3 times stiffer than rabbit sclera. In rabbit sclera, both the stress and Young’s modulus were significantly increased by CXL (P<0.05). In porcine sclera, only the ultimate stress was significantly increased by CXL (P<0.05). The biomechanical properties of human sclera were not statistically affected by CXL (P>0.05).Conclusions. Human sclera has higher biomechanical stiffness than porcine and rabbit sclera. With the same irradiation dose, riboflavin/UVA CXL increases the biomechanical stiffness of rabbit sclera but not porcine or human sclera.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

Acosta, Frank L., Jenni M. Buckley, Zheng Xu, Jeffrey C. Lotz, and Christopher P. Ames. "Biomechanical comparison of three fixation techniques for unstable thoracolumbar burst fractures." Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 8, no. 4 (April 2008): 341–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/spi/2008/8/4/341.

Full text

Abstract:

Object Increased structural stability is considered sufficient justification for higher-risk surgical procedures, such as circumferential fixation after severe spinal destabilization. However, there is little biomechanical evidence to support such claims, particularly after traumatic lumbar burst fracture. The authors sought out to compare the biomechanical performance of the following 3 fixation strategies for spinal reconstruction after decompression for an unstable thoracolumbar burst fracture: 1) short-segment anterolateral fixation; 2) circumferential fixation; and 3) extended anterolateral fixation. Methods Thoracolumbar spines (T10–L4) from 7 donors (mean age at death 64 ± 6 years; 1 female and 6 males) were tested in pure moment loading in flexion–extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Thoracolumbar burst fractures were surgically induced at L-1, and testing was repeated sequentially for each of the following fixation techniques: short-segment anterolateral, circumferential, and extended anterolateral. Primary and coupled 3D motions were measured across the instrumented site (T12–L2) and compared across treatment groups. Results Circumferential and extended anterolateral fixations were statistically equivalent for primary and off-axis range-of-motions in all loading directions, and short-segment anterolateral fixation offered significantly less rigidity than the other 2 methods. Conclusions The results of this study strongly suggest that extended anterolateral fixation is biomechanically comparable to circumferential fusion in the treatment of unstable thoracolumbar burst fractures with posterior column and posterior ligamentous injury. In cases in which an anterior procedure may be favored for load sharing or canal decompression, extension of the anterior instrumentation and fusion one level above and below the unstable segment can result in near equivalent stability to a 2-stage circumferential procedure.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

Barre, A., K. Turcot, A. Bonnefoy-Mazure, and S. Armand. "Comparison of biomechanical gait models with the open-source biomechanical toolkit (BTK): Preliminary results." Gait & Posture 39 (June 2014): S73—S74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.04.101.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

Wang, Ting, Yuan Mu, Yulei Diao, Wenke Liu, Yahong Wu, Zhuoqun Wang, Yanfeng Luo, Yangli Xie, and Liangjun Yin. "Biomechanical Comparison of Panda Rope Bridge Technique and Other Minimally Invasive Achilles Tendon Repair Techniques In Vitro." Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 9, no. 6 (June 1, 2021): 232596712110084. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671211008436.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: Although nonoperative management of acute Achilles tendon rupture (ATR) is a reasonable option, surgical repair has attracted attention for young and active patients. More reliable Achilles tendon repair techniques are needed to enhance recovery after ATR in this population. Purpose/Hypothesis: To biomechanically analyze the panda rope bridge technique (PRBT) and compare it with other minimally invasive repair techniques over a simulated, progressive rehabilitation program. It was hypothesized that PRBT would result in better biomechanical properties and enhanced recovery after ATR. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: An Achilles tendon rupture was created 4 cm from the distal tendon insertion site in 40 bovine lower extremities, and specimens were then randomly allocated to 5 Achilles tendon repair techniques: (1) Achillon, (2) modified Achillon, (3) Percutaneous Achilles Repair System (PARS), (4) modified PARS, and (5) PRBT. Each group was subjected to a cyclic loading protocol that was representative of progressive postoperative rehabilitation for ATR (250 cycles at 1 Hz for each loading stage: 20-100 N, 20-200 N, 20-300 N, and 20-400 N). Results: The PRBT technique demonstrated significantly less elongation (1.62 ± 0.25 mm) than the 4 other repair techniques after the first loading stage of 20 to 100 N ( P < .05). All specimens in the 4 other groups developed a large gap (elongation ≥5 mm) at the 20- to 200-N loading stage. When overall biomechanical performance was examined, the PRBT group exhibited higher strength (20-400 N) and more mean loading cycles (984 ± 10) compared with the 4 other groups ( P < .05). Conclusion: In this bovine model, PRBT biomechanically outperformed the other minimally invasive Achilles tendon repair techniques that were tested and could therefore meet the requirements of accelerated rehabilitation. Clinical Relevance: The reduced tendency for premature rerupture and the overall improved biomechanical properties of PRBT suggest that ATR patients treated with PRBT may more readily complete early and aggressive postoperative rehabilitation protocols. In addition, they may have a lower risk of early irreversible suture failure.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

Dogan, Ali, Mahmut Korkmaz, Nurettin Cengiz, A. Murat Kalender, and M. Ata Gokalp. "Biomechanical Comparison of Achilles Tenotomy and Achilloplasty Techniques in Young Rats." Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association 99, no. 3 (May 1, 2009): 216–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.7547/0980216.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: Tendo Achillis lengthening is performed by means of Z-plasty in the classic treatment of clubfoot. In the Ponseti method for treating clubfoot, Achilles tenotomy is performed percutaneously for residual equine deformity. A randomized study was designed to compare tendon healing after tenotomy versus Z-plasty. Methods: Thirty-six Sprague-Dawley rats were divided randomly into two groups. On the first day, while the right tendo Achillis of group 1 rats underwent tenotomy, those of group 2 rats underwent Z-plasty. Nine rats from each group were humanely killed on days 21 and 45 postoperatively. The two groups were compared with each other biomechanically and histologically. The Achilles tendons of eight rats in each group were evaluated biomechanically, and the remaining rat in each group underwent histologic evaluation. Results: Mean ± SD maximum load at rupture of the treated tendons on days 21 and 45 in the tenotomy group was 26.38 ± 7.31 N and 47.16 ± 15.36 N, respectively, and in the Z-plasty group was 27.37 ± 5.20 N and 45.27 ± 9.59 N, respectively. The biomechanical evaluation revealed no significant difference in terms of breaking forces between the two groups. The difference between breaking forces on days 21 and 45 was statistically significant for both groups. Conclusions: Tendons in the tenotomy group healed as well as those in the Z-plasty group, and Achilles tenotomy in the rat was similar to Z-plasty for Achilles tendon lengthening. Human correlation may or may not exist, but this study suggests that it should be considered and investigated. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 99(3): 216–222, 2009)

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

Moening, Darci, Amy Scheidt, Linda Shepardson, and George J. Davies. "Biomechanical Comparison of Water Running and Treadmill Running." Isokinetics and Exercise Science 3, no. 4 (October 1, 1993): 207–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ies-1993-3406.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

Hott, Jonathan S., James J. Lynch, Robert H. Chamberlain, Volker K. H. Sonntag, and Neil R. Crawford. "Biomechanical comparison of C1–2 posterior fixation techniques." Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 2, no. 2 (February 2005): 175–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.2.2.0175.

Full text

Abstract:

Object. In a nondestructive, repeated-measures in vitro flexibility experiment, the authors compared the acute stability of C1–2 after placement of C-1 lateral mass and C-2 pars interarticularis (LC1—PC2) instrumentation with that of C1–2 transarticular screw fixation. Methods. The effect of C-1 laminectomy and C1–2 interspinous cable/graft fixation on LC1—PC2 stability was studied. Screw pullout strengths were also compared. Seven human cadaveric occiput—C3 specimens were loaded nondestructively with pure moments while measuring nonconstrained atlantoaxial motion. Specimens were tested with graft alone, LC1—PC2 alone, LC1—PC2 combined with C-1 laminectomy, and graft-augmented LC1—PC2. Interspinous cable/graft fixation significantly enhanced LC1—PC2 stability during extension. After C-1 laminectomy, the LC1—PC2 construct allowed increased motion during flexion and extension. There was no significant difference in lax zone or range of motion between LC1—PC2 fixation and transarticular screw fixation, but graft-assisted transarticular screws yielded a significantly smaller stiff zone during extension. The difference in pullout resistance between C-1 lateral mass screws and C-2 pars interarticularis screws was insignificant. The LC1—PC2 region restricted motion to within the normal range during all loading modes. Atlantal laminectomy reduced LC1—PC2 stability during flexion and extension. Conclusions. The instrumentation-augmented LC1—PC2 construct performed biomechanically similarly to the C1–2 transarticular screw fixation. The LC1—PC2 construct resisted flexion, lateral bending, and axial rotation well. The weakness of the LC1—PC2 fixation in resisting extension can be overcome by adding an interspinous graft to the construct.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!