These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
349 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16645103)
21. Survivorship and clinical outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum ten years' follow-up. Azam MQ; McMahon S; Hawdon G; Sankineani SR Int Orthop; 2016 Jan; 40(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 25820838 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Results of Birmingham hip resurfacing at 12 to 15 years: a single-surgeon series. Daniel J; Pradhan C; Ziaee H; Pynsent PB; McMinn DJ Bone Joint J; 2014 Oct; 96-B(10):1298-306. PubMed ID: 25274912 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Revision total hip arthroplasty for ceramic head fracture: a long-term follow-up. Sharma V; Ranawat AS; Rasquinha VJ; Weiskopf J; Howard H; Ranawat CS J Arthroplasty; 2010 Apr; 25(3):342-7. PubMed ID: 20347713 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Early failure of the Durom prosthesis in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in Chinese patients. Li J; He C; Li D; Zheng W; Liu D; Xu W J Arthroplasty; 2013 Dec; 28(10):1816-21. PubMed ID: 23831082 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Revision of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Wera GD; Gillespie RJ; Petty C; Petersilge WJ; Kraay MJ; Goldberg VM Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ); 2010 Aug; 39(8):E78-83. PubMed ID: 20882209 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Resurfacing versus conventional total hip arthroplasty - review of comparative clinical and basic science studies. Marker DR; Strimbu K; McGrath MS; Zywiel MG; Mont MA Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis; 2009; 67(2):120-7. PubMed ID: 19583538 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Ten-year clinical, radiological and metal ion analysis of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: from a single, non-designer surgeon. Holland JP; Langton DJ; Hashmi M J Bone Joint Surg Br; 2012 Apr; 94(4):471-6. PubMed ID: 22434461 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Femoral revision in hip resurfacing compared with large-bearing metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. Garrett SJ; Bolland BJ; Yates PJ; Gardner EM; Latham JM J Arthroplasty; 2011 Dec; 26(8):1214-8. PubMed ID: 21414749 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. The results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings at a mean of five years. An independent prospective review of the first 230 hips. Hing CB; Back DL; Bailey M; Young DA; Dalziel RE; Shimmin AJ J Bone Joint Surg Br; 2007 Nov; 89(11):1431-8. PubMed ID: 17998177 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Independent predictors of revision following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: a retrospective cohort study using National Joint Registry data. Jameson SS; Baker PN; Mason J; Porter ML; Deehan DJ; Reed MR J Bone Joint Surg Br; 2012 Jun; 94(6):746-54. PubMed ID: 22628587 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum follow-up of ten years. Treacy RB; McBryde CW; Shears E; Pynsent PB J Bone Joint Surg Br; 2011 Jan; 93(1):27-33. PubMed ID: 21196539 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Functional results of isolated femoral revision of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Gilbert RE; Cheung G; Carrothers AD; Meyer C; Richardson JB J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2010 Jul; 92(7):1600-4. PubMed ID: 20595565 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. [Medium-term effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty with straight tapered rectangular femoral prosthesis]. Liu H; Gu W; Sun J Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2013 May; 27(5):594-8. PubMed ID: 23879099 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. The Canadian Arthroplasty Society's experience with hip resurfacing arthroplasty. An analysis of 2773 hips. Canadian Arthroplasty Society Bone Joint J; 2013 Aug; 95-B(8):1045-51. PubMed ID: 23908418 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Ten-year survival of the MS-30 matt-surfaced cemented stem. Berli BJ; Schäfer D; Morscher EW J Bone Joint Surg Br; 2005 Jul; 87(7):928-33. PubMed ID: 15972904 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty versus large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: comparison of three designs from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Junnila M; Kostensalo I; Virolainen P; Remes V; Matilainen M; Vahlberg T; Pulkkinen P; Eskelinen A; Itälä A; Mäkelä K Scand J Surg; 2014 Mar; 103(1):54-9. PubMed ID: 24345980 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Outcomes with cementless total hip resurfacing: 5 year follow-up. Radtke K; Ettinger M; Heidgen H; Floerkemeier T; Noll Y; Stukenborg-Colsman C; Windhagen H; von Lewinski G Technol Health Care; 2014 Jan; 22(2):263-72. PubMed ID: 24898864 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a review of the evidence for surgical technique, outcome, and complications. Amanatullah DF; Cheung Y; Di Cesare PE Orthop Clin North Am; 2010 Apr; 41(2):263-72. PubMed ID: 20399365 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a series of 140 consecutive hips with a minimum five year follow-up. A clinical, radiological and histological analysis. Giannini S; Cadossi M; Chiarello E; Faldini C; Moroni A; Romagnoli M Hip Int; 2011; 21(1):52-8. PubMed ID: 21279970 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Birmingham hip resurfacing: the prevalence of failure. Carrothers AD; Gilbert RE; Jaiswal A; Richardson JB J Bone Joint Surg Br; 2010 Oct; 92(10):1344-50. PubMed ID: 20884969 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]