Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:1940173rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0029468lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:1940173lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0223724lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:1940173lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1707455lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:1940173lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0441254lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:1940173lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1517004lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:issue5lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:dateCreated1991-12-6lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:abstractTextThis study determined the force, bending rigidity, and bending moment at failure of three types of internal fixation systems for the scaphoid bone. A pair of parallel, 0.045-inch Kirschner wires were compared on a paired, bilateral basis with either a Herbert screw or a 3.5 millimeter cannulated screw in repairing a transverse waist osteotomy in cadaver scaphoids. The mean values at failure of the Herbert screw and the cannulated screw versus the paired, parallel Kirschner wires for force (65 N and 77 N versus 23.7 N), rigidity (0.47 Nm2 and 0.54 Nm2 versus 0.16 Nm2) and bending (0.98 Nm and 1.15 Nm versus 0.36 Nm) were approximately three times greater. These differences were statistically significant when compared on a paired basis. This experiment demonstrates that the Herbert screw and cannulated screw are significantly stronger in resisting bending forces than paired, parallel Kirschner wires.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:monthSeplld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:issn0363-5023lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:authorpubmed-author:ParsonsJ RJRlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:authorpubmed-author:ZimmermanM...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:authorpubmed-author:CarterF...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:authorpubmed-author:DiPaolaD MDMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:authorpubmed-author:MackessyR PRPlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:volume16lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:pagination907-12lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:dateRevised2009-6-8lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:1940173-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:1940173-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:1940173-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:1940173-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:1940173-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:1940173-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:year1991lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:articleTitleBiomechanical comparison of fixation devices in experimental scaphoid osteotomies.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:affiliationDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, George L. Schultz Laboratories for Orthopaedic Research, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey Medical School, Newark 07103.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1940173pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed