戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 tatistically significantly, in demonstrating acetabular and femoral cartilage pathology.
2                               After imaging, acetabular and femoral data were separated and acetabula
3 hic analysis with the exception of increased acetabular anteversion in the DAA cohort (p = 0.036).
4                          The same values for acetabular cartilage assessment were 89/56, 40/60, 71/71
5  was substantial to excellent with regard to acetabular cartilage assessment with MRa and CTa (kappa=
6 ssment with use of a modified Beck scale for acetabular cartilage damage was performed by an orthoped
7                    Pressures on normal human acetabular cartilage have been collected from two implan
8 eement was also recorded in only one case of acetabular cartilage loss with both methods.
9 L), femoral offset (FO), horizontal/vertical acetabular center of rotation distance (h/vCORD)) of 47
10 THRs with heads and monobloc cups or modular acetabular component THRs with head and shell/liner comb
11                       Signal void around the acetabular component was smaller for STIR-warp than STIR
12                                              Acetabular components are not required, but attention to
13 ncidence of loosening was shown for cemented acetabular components with time.
14 etal-backed versus non-metal backed cemented acetabular components, and an increasing incidence of lo
15 about the diffusion process of lipids in the acetabular cup and provides, for the first time, a promi
16 s among the most commonly used materials for acetabular cup replacement in artificial joint systems.
17 efined by the results of measurements of the acetabular depth (<9 mm) or the center-edge angle (<30 d
18           In addition, center-edge angle and acetabular depth were assessed as geometric measurements
19 k offset (HNO), and HNO ratio along with the acetabular depth, inclination, and anteversion were deri
20 sonographic dysplastic hips has no effect on acetabular development.
21 regions including the oral sensory papillae, acetabular ducts, tegument, acetabular glands, and nervo
22  = 0.001]) as well as a higher prevalence of acetabular dysplasia (mean lateral center edge angle 29.
23 rformed to determine the association between acetabular dysplasia and incident hip OA, and all analys
24       There is no consensus on the degree of acetabular dysplasia that does or does not require treat
25                                              Acetabular dysplasia was defined by the results of measu
26 By age 2 years, subluxation, dislocation, or acetabular dysplasia were identified by radiography on o
27 ssociation of abnormal center-edge angle and acetabular dysplasia with incident hip OA were 3.3 (95%
28                                              Acetabular dysplasia, defined by a decrease in the cente
29  features of hip joint architecture, such as acetabular dysplasia, pistol grip deformity, wide femora
30 antial interobserver agreement for Letournel acetabular fracture classification with multiplanar refo
31                                           In acetabular fracture surgery, achieving an optimal recons
32 dian (range) age of 63 (46-79) years with an acetabular fracture were included.
33  CT examinations: eight lung contusions, one acetabular fracture, one sternal fracture, and one adren
34 en treated operatively or with any pelvic or acetabular fracture, thromboprophylaxis with aspirin was
35 treated operatively or who had any pelvic or acetabular fracture.
36 tive treatment for displaced associated-type acetabular fractures at a tertiary university-affiliated
37  age, 43 years; age range, 15-86 years) with acetabular fractures.
38 te by holocytosis of vesicles from ten large acetabular gland cells.
39 ties concurrent with the temporal release of acetabular gland components.
40 ensory papillae, acetabular ducts, tegument, acetabular glands, and nervous system.
41 sive approaches to the management of femoral acetabular impingement, labral tears, loose bodies and c
42 , the all-cause risk of revision for modular acetabular implant varied non-constantly.
43  the all-cause risk of revision for monobloc acetabular implant was higher for patients with cobalt c
44 f revision for both the monobloc and modular acetabular implants.
45                       The measurement of the acetabular index (AI) on plain pelvis X-rays was used to
46 of care) showed no treatment differences for acetabular index at age 10 months (p = 0.82) and walking
47 n pelvic radiographs (Tonnis classification: acetabular index greater than 2 standard deviations) aro
48                                              Acetabular labral tears have shown to be difficult to di
49 g imaging modality for accurate diagnosis of acetabular labral tears.
50 ing operative vs non-operative management of acetabular labral tears.
51 a with contrast material that tracked at the acetabular-labral junction, one of which had associated
52 trast material, and contrast material at the acetabular-labral junction.
53  was to prospectively compare imaging of the acetabular labrum with 3.0-T magnetic resonance (MR) ima
54 acture of the acetabulum following RFA of an acetabular lesion.
55  how to interpret the continuous spectrum of acetabular morphology.
56 f fluid pockets (in millimeters) seen in the acetabular notch; recesses anterior, posterior, and late
57                   Femoral osteophytes (FOs), acetabular osteophytes (AOs), and joint-space narrowing
58 pace (MJS) < or =1.5 mm, definite femoral or acetabular osteophytes, definite superolateral joint spa
59                         The patient-specific acetabular projection enabled co-localization between th
60                         The patient-specific acetabular projection with a T2* mapping overlay enabled
61                           A patient-specific acetabular projection with a T2* overlay was developed t
62 ity, dural ectasia, joint hypermobility, and acetabular protrusion.
63                                    Yet, open acetabular reconstructive surgeries are associated with
64 etabular and femoral data were separated and acetabular regions of interest were identified.
65 e inserts proximally and continuously to the acetabular rim periosteum.
66 rly with regard to innovative design such as acetabular screw rings, whereas porous-coated hemispheri
67 ical shape modeling on US images to identify acetabular shape characteristics of Graf type II hips, w
68    Three-dimensional US can display the full acetabular shape, which might improve DDH developmental
69 h were assessed as geometric measurements of acetabular shape.
70 ateral center-edge angle, impingement angle, acetabular slope, femoral head-to-femoral neck ratio, an
71 d LCE angle, Sharp-Ulmann angle and signs of acetabular version were compared.